AN ABSTRACT OF THE DISSERTATION OF
Kimberly L. Ogren for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy in Geography presented on
July 17, 2015.
Title: Water Governance Process Assessment: Evaluating the Link between Decision
Making Processes and Outcomes in the Columbia River Basin
Abstract approved: ______________________________________________________
Aaron T. Wolf
Academics and practitioners agree that in water governance, the quality of a
decision making process should influence the quality of the outcome and the degree to
which it is accepted by interested parties. However, finding a feasible way to evaluate
and then improve the quality of a decision making process has proven elusive.
Systematically collecting evidence of a link between process and outcome is also
challenging. In my dissertation, I developed a synthesis framework for evaluating and
improving water governance decision making to address these two challenges. The
synthesis framework, which I call the Water Governance Process Assessment (Water
GPA), draws upon 22 existing frameworks rooted in resilience, adaptive governance, and
good governance. From these frameworks, I identified and provided a way to evaluate
four characteristics critical to good water governance decision making processes: 1)
accountability, 2) inclusivity, and 3) information, and 4) context.
I applied the Water GPA framework to the recent reviews of the Columbia River
Treaty by the United States and Canada. I collected data for the case studies through
semi-structured interviews and surveys of process participants from the federal agencies,
Tribal and First Nations, state/provincial governments, local governments, stakeholder
interests, and citizens. I coded and analyzed the interviews using the qualitative analysis
software QSR NVivo and the characteristics identified in the Water GPA framework.
I used the two case study applications to demonstrate how to use the framework. I
identified what aspects of the four process categories served as barriers and building
blocks for good water governance in each water governance process. I also gleaned
lessons learned and recommendations including some for determining process leadership,
ensuring meaningful engagement and inclusivity, addressing sovereignty issues, setting
decision criteria, sharing decision authority, allocating resources in future processes in
the US and BC portions of the Columbia River Basin and similar basins.
In my case studies, I also investigated which characteristics of the water
governance decision making process influenced the direct outcomes of those processes
(the decisions) as well as other non-target outcomes (such as trust, co-produced science,
new coalitions, etc.). All four characteristics outlined in the Water Governance Process
Assessment (Water GPA), played some role in the development of the content and/or
support of the two case study decision documents (US Regional Recommendation and
BC Provincial Decision). Generally, when the characteristic of the process was done
well, it improved the legitimacy and acceptance of the decision. At the same time
performing poorly in one area did not necessarily torpedo the process or decision. In both
case studies, it appears that the interplay between the process characteristics (that is
where two or more characteristics converge) had a greater influence over the decision.
Further work is needed to clearly identify what characteristics of a process are most
influential in different situations. The Water GPA is one useful tool for this effort.
©Copyright by Kimberly L. Ogren
July 17, 2015
All Rights Reserved
Water Governance Process Assessment: Evaluating the Link between Decision Making
Processes and Outcomes in the Columbia River Basin
by
Kimberly L. Ogren
A DISSERTATION
submitted to
Oregon State University
in partial fulfillment of
the requirements for the
degree of
Doctor of Philosophy
Presented July 17, 2015
Commencement June 2016
Doctor of Philosophy dissertation of Kimberly L. Ogren presented on July 17, 2015
APPROVED:
Major Professor, representing Geography
Dean of the College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences
Dean of the Graduate School
I understand that my dissertation will become part of the permanent collection of Oregon
State University libraries. My signature below authorizes release of my dissertation to
any reader upon request.
Kimberly L. Ogren, Author
ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS
First, I would like to thank my family. I would like to thank my parents (Tedd and
Cindy Ogren), siblings (Tad, Allie, Tyler, and Carly), and grandparents (Barbara Fricker
and Ted and Carolyn Ogren) for their unconditional love. Whatever I needed, whether it
be a listening ear or a break from the work, you were and are always there to offer your
support. I am so blessed to be a part of this family; one encourages me to follow my
dreams, even when those dreams take me thousands of miles away.
I am deeply grateful to my major advisor, Dr. Aaron Wolf, and committee Dr.
Michael Campana, Dr. Gregg Walker, Barb Cosens, JD, and Dr. Christine Olsen, for their
guidance through this journey. Aaron, thank you for encouraging me to work toward my
PhD and for all the meetings, conversations, and advice to help me get to this point.
Michael, thank you for always being my advocate and for connecting me to the larger
water community through the American Water Resources Association. I know you are
always in my corner. Your confidence in me is both encouraging and motivating me to
offer my best. Barb, thank you for pushing me to think deeper about theory and for the
opportunity to stretch my mind with the Adaptive Water Governance Project at
SESYNC. Gregg, thank you for sharing your love of process and negotiation and for
demonstrating how to be a true ‘pracademic,’ navigating the world as both an academic
and practitioner. Christine, thank you for going above and beyond your duties as my
Graduate Council Representative to help my committee ensure that I do meet the
requirements to be a “big R” Researcher.
I am grateful for the financial support from the Hydro Research Foundation,
Sasakawa Young Leadership Fellowship Fund (Sylff), Oregon State University Graduate
School, American Association of Geographers Water Resources Specialty Group,
Muckleston Award, and Arthur Parenzin Fellowship.
I am deeply indebted to those in the Columbia River Basin who participated in my
study and welcomed me into the Columbia River community. I am grateful for your
honest insights into the two Columbia River Treaty reviews. Your passions and
connections to this river and place are inspiring. What I hope for most is that each of you
sees your voice in my dissertation and that it helps the basin navigate the choices ahead.
I would also like to thank Matt Rea for patiently wading through the bureaucratic
process to bring me into the US Columbia River Treaty Review and giving me an inside
view of the process, an experience that is one of the highlights of my doctoral work.
I also want to thank my friends at OSU and Corvallis for their support and
friendship. I specifically want to thank Julie Watson, Drew Bennett, Jacob PetersenPerlman, Brian Chaffin, Shiloh Sundstrom, and many others for conversations ranging
from theory to methods to research troubles to life in general. I also want to thank Dr.
Mary Santelmann for all that you do for the water community at OSU and your example
as a PhD, woman of faith, and leader. I am also grateful for Geoff Huntington’s advice
and insights. Geoff, thank you for mentoring me these last few years.
I am both appreciative of and humbled by my church communities. Thank you to
everyone at the Well Covenant Church and OSU Graduate Christian Fellowship for being
my Oregon family, for walking with me through the high and lows of life and graduate
school, and for loving me well. Most importantly, I would like to offer my gratitude to
God and my Savior Jesus Christ. Reflecting on the last few years, I am in awe of Your
grace, faithfulness, and timing.
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
1
Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1
1.1
Improving Water Governance............................................................................ 1
1.2
Problem Statement ............................................................................................ 3
1.3
Research Questions and Objectives ................................................................... 6
1.4
Theoretical Underpinnings .............................................................................. 10
1.4.1
Resilience of Social-Ecological Systems .................................................. 11
1.4.2
Adaptive Management and Adaptive Governance .................................... 11
1.4.3
Adaptive Governance, Good Governance, and Process ............................. 14
1.5
2
3
Chapter Summary and Conclusion ................................................................... 15
Synthesis Framework Development ........................................................................ 17
2.1
Literature Review ............................................................................................ 17
2.2
Development of the Water Governance Process Assessment ........................... 20
2.2.1
Context .................................................................................................... 25
2.2.2
Inclusivity ................................................................................................ 27
2.2.3
Information .............................................................................................. 28
2.2.4
Accountability .......................................................................................... 30
2.2.5
Connecting the Process Categories ........................................................... 32
2.2.6
Assessing the Process Categories ............................................................. 35
2.2.7
Assessing Outcomes ................................................................................. 38
2.3
Limitations of the Synthesis Framework .......................................................... 40
2.4
Chapter Conclusion ......................................................................................... 41
Case Study Methodology........................................................................................ 42
3.1
Research Design .............................................................................................. 42
3.1.1
Case Studies a Method of Qualitative Inquiry ........................................... 42
3.1.2
Review of Research Questions and Hypotheses ........................................ 43
3.1.3
Case Study Selection ................................................................................ 44
3.1.4
Case Study Research Design .................................................................... 46
3.2
Data Collection ............................................................................................... 48
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
3.2.1
Semi-structured interviews and surveys .................................................... 48
3.2.2
Documents ............................................................................................... 53
3.3
3.3.1
Decision Making Process ......................................................................... 54
3.3.2
Process Outcomes .................................................................................... 55
3.3.3
The Link between Process and Outcomes ................................................. 57
3.3.4
Statement of Potential Research Bias ........................................................ 60
3.4
4
Data Analysis .................................................................................................. 53
Chapter Summary and Conclusion ................................................................... 63
Case Study Settings: The Transboundary Columbia River and its Treaty ................ 65
4.1
Basin Geography ............................................................................................. 65
4.1.1
Political Boundaries and People ............................................................... 65
4.1.2
Hydrology of the Basin ............................................................................ 68
4.1.3
Other Natural Resources in the Basin ....................................................... 69
4.2
Columbia River Treaty .................................................................................... 70
4.2.1
Overview ................................................................................................. 70
4.2.2
History and Development ......................................................................... 72
4.2.3
Dam Authorization and Construction ....................................................... 74
4.2.4
Joint Coordination .................................................................................... 75
4.2.5
Hydropower Generation ........................................................................... 77
4.2.6
Flood Risk Management ........................................................................... 81
4.2.7
How Disputes are Resolved with the Treaty ............................................. 86
4.2.8
Other Provisions ....................................................................................... 88
4.2.9
Upcoming and Potential Changes to the Treaty ........................................ 89
4.3
Overview of Impacts of the Treaty .................................................................. 90
4.3.1
Impacts of Dam Development .................................................................. 91
4.3.2
Impacts of Dam and Reservoir Operations ................................................ 93
4.3.3
Efforts to Mitigate Negative Impacts ........................................................ 95
4.4
Other Transboundary Basin Management ........................................................ 98
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
4.4.1
Boundary Waters Treaty and International Joint Commission ................... 99
4.4.2
Libby Coordination Agreement .............................................................. 100
4.4.3
Non-Treaty Storage Agreements ............................................................ 101
4.5
4.5.1
Water Management Jurisdictions ............................................................ 102
4.5.2
International Treaties .............................................................................. 105
4.5.3
Dam and Reservoir Management ............................................................ 106
4.6
Water Governance in United States and Pacific Northwest Region ................ 109
4.6.1
Federal, State, and Tribal Jurisdictions in Water Management ................ 109
4.6.2
International Treaties .............................................................................. 113
4.6.3
Dam and Reservoir Management ............................................................ 114
4.7
5
Water Governance in Canada and British Columbia ...................................... 102
Chapter Conclusion ....................................................................................... 117
Treaty Review Case Study: British Columbia’s Columbia River Treaty Review ... 118
5.1.1
First Nation Consultation........................................................................ 120
5.1.2
Basin Consultation ................................................................................. 120
5.1.3
Technical Studies ................................................................................... 122
5.2
Development of the British Columbia Provincial Decision ............................ 123
5.3
Water GPA Results ....................................................................................... 126
5.3.1
Study Participants................................................................................... 126
5.3.2
Methodology Overview .......................................................................... 128
5.3.3
Accountability ........................................................................................ 129
5.3.4
Information ............................................................................................ 141
5.3.5
Inclusivity .............................................................................................. 151
5.3.6
Context .................................................................................................. 164
5.3.7
Other Aspects of the Process .................................................................. 168
5.3.8
Decision (BC Provincial Decision) ......................................................... 168
5.3.9
Byproducts ............................................................................................. 172
5.4
Case Study Discussion .................................................................................. 178
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
5.4.1
Discussion of Water GPA ‘score’ ........................................................... 178
5.4.2
Lessons Learned ..................................................................................... 187
5.4.3
Caveats and Limitation ........................................................................... 192
5.5
6
Chapter Conclusion ....................................................................................... 194
Case Study: US Columbia River Treaty 2014/2024 Review .................................. 196
6.1
Overview of the US CRT 2014/2024 Review Process.................................... 196
6.1.1
Sovereign Participation Process .............................................................. 198
6.1.2
Stakeholder Engagement ........................................................................ 200
6.2
Development of the US Regional Recommendation ...................................... 203
6.2.1
Putting Pen to Paper: the Working Draft US Regional Recommendation 204
6.2.2
Recalibrating: the Draft US Regional Recommendation ......................... 205
6.2.3
Working Towards Consensus: the Final US Regional Recommendation . 208
6.3
Next steps...................................................................................................... 214
6.4
Water GPA Results ....................................................................................... 215
6.4.1
Study Participants................................................................................... 216
6.4.2
Methodology Overview .......................................................................... 218
6.4.3
Accountability ........................................................................................ 219
6.4.4
Information ............................................................................................ 232
6.4.5
Inclusivity .............................................................................................. 241
6.4.6
Context .................................................................................................. 249
6.4.7
Other Aspects of the Process .................................................................. 252
6.4.8
Decision (US Regional Recommendation).............................................. 254
6.4.9
Byproducts ............................................................................................. 259
6.5
Case Study Discussion .................................................................................. 265
6.5.1
Discussion of Water GPA ‘score’ and implications for governance ........ 265
6.5.2
Lessons Learned ..................................................................................... 272
6.5.3
Caveats and Limitation ........................................................................... 279
6.6
Chapter Conclusion ....................................................................................... 280
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
7
Investigating the Link between Process and Outcomes ......................................... 282
7.1
Methodology ................................................................................................. 282
7.2
Analysis: The Influence of the Process on the Decision ................................. 284
7.2.1
BC CRT 2014/2024 Review Results ....................................................... 285
7.2.2
US CRT 2014/2024 Review Results ....................................................... 291
7.3
7.3.1
BC CRT Review Results ........................................................................ 298
7.3.2
US CRT 2014/2024 Review Results ....................................................... 301
7.4
Discussion ..................................................................................................... 308
7.4.1
Decisions ............................................................................................... 308
7.4.2
Byproducts ............................................................................................. 308
7.4.3
Process and Outcomes: A Complex Relationship.................................... 309
7.4.4
Caveats and Limitations ......................................................................... 311
7.4.5
Future Research...................................................................................... 312
7.5
8
The Influence of the Process on Byproducts .................................................. 297
Chapter conclusion ........................................................................................ 313
Discussion and Conclusion ................................................................................... 315
8.1
Summary and Discussion of Findings ............................................................ 315
8.1.1
Research Question 1 ............................................................................... 316
8.1.2
Research Question 2 ............................................................................... 317
8.1.3
Research Question 3 ............................................................................... 322
8.1.4
Research Question 4 ............................................................................... 324
8.2
Implications for Adaptive Governance .......................................................... 327
8.3
Challenges and Limitations of Case Study Research ...................................... 330
8.3.1
Construct Validity .................................................................................. 330
8.3.2
Internal Validity ..................................................................................... 331
8.3.3
Generalizability ...................................................................................... 331
8.3.4
Reliability .............................................................................................. 333
8.4
Future Research............................................................................................. 334
TABLE OF CONTENTS (continued)
Page
9
Bibliography ........................................................................................................ 336
10 Appendix A - Case Study Survey ......................................................................... 356
11 Appendix B - Case Study Interview Guide ........................................................... 362
12 Appendix C - IRB Approval ................................................................................. 363
13 Appendix D - Codebook ....................................................................................... 364
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure
Page
Figure 1. Overview of approach for accomplishing Objective 1 .......................................7
Figure 2: A typology for water governance decision making process frameworks .......... 20
Figure 3. Simplified concept map of elements for good decision making processes ....... 22
Figure 4. Mirrored structure of the process categories and four worlds construct............ 24
Figure 5. Central issues related to accountability in decision making processes.............. 31
Figure 6. Example inter-dependencies between framework categories ........................... 33
Figure 7. Diagram of case study boundaries ................................................................... 46
Figure 8. Columbia River Basin ..................................................................................... 66
Figure 9. Timeline of the Development of the Columbia River Treaty ........................... 73
Figure 10. Alternative Dispute Resolution in the Columbia River Treaty ....................... 87
Figure 11. Institutional map of BC-Canada CRT Review structure .............................. 119
Figure 12. Institutional map of US CRT 2014/2024 Review structure .......................... 197
Figure 13. Water GPA accountability subcomponents.................................................. 329
LIST OF TABLES
Table
Page
Table 1. Broad frameworks for natural resource and water governance ............................4
Table 2. Examples of detailed indicators for evaluating public participation ....................5
Table 3. Summary of research questions, objectives, and methods ................................. 16
Table 4: Framework inclusion criteria, explanation, and justification ............................. 17
Table 5: Frameworks identified for inclusion in the synthesis framework ...................... 18
Table 6. Characteristic theme definitions ....................................................................... 23
Table 7. What to consider in terms of context for decision making processes ................. 26
Table 8. Summary of Water Governance Process Assessment categtories ...................... 33
Table 9. Example assessment of context ........................................................................ 37
Table 10. Byproduct bank .............................................................................................. 39
Table 11. Case study research questions and hypotheses ................................................ 44
Table 12. Summary of case study boundaries ................................................................. 47
Table 13. Summary of case study research design .......................................................... 48
Table 14. Groups included in stratified sampling approach ............................................ 49
Table 15. BC Columbia River Treaty Review case study participants ............................ 50
Table 16. US 2014/2024 CRT Review case study participants ....................................... 51
Table 17. Summary of data analysis of process outcomes .............................................. 56
Table 18. Additional codes for analysis of link between a process and its decision......... 59
Table 19. Additional codes for analysis of link between a process and its byproducts .... 59
Table 20. Example NVivo matrix coding query results: how process influenced the US
Regional Recommendation ............................................................................................ 59
Table 21. Potential researcher biases and how I worked to mitigate them....................... 63
Table 22. List of some of the Tribal Nations in the Columbia River Basin ..................... 67
Table 23. List of some of the First Nations in the Columbia River Basin ....................... 67
Table 24. Percent of State or Province in Columbia River Basin .................................... 68
Table 25. Columbia Basin Storage ................................................................................. 69
Table 26. Land cover in the Columbia River Basin ........................................................ 70
Table 27. Columbia River Treaty Dams ......................................................................... 74
Table 28. Columbia River Treaty roles .......................................................................... 75
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table
Page
Table 29. CRT operating plans and agreements ............................................................. 76
Table 30. Reasons for variation in the values cited for the Canadian Entitlement ........... 79
Table 31. Area of Pre-Dam Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecosystems inundated by the Treaty
and Revelstoke Reservoirs (ha) ...................................................................................... 91
Table 32. Fish declines in the Kootenai River downstream of Libby Dam...................... 93
Table 33. Negative Treaty operation impacts in British Columbia .................................. 94
Table 34. Mitigation efforts in the Columbia and Duncan Water Use Plans ................... 97
Table 35. Operational and Soft Constraints in the Columbia and Duncan WUPs ............ 97
Table 36. Other Transboundary Columbia River Agreements ........................................ 99
Table 37. Canada's federal environmental legislation relevant to dams and reservoirs .. 108
Table 38. US federal environmental legislation relevant to dams and reservoirs ........... 111
Table 39. Stratified quota sampling strategy for the BC CRT Review case study ......... 127
Table 40. Type of interviewee involvement in the BC CRT Review ............................ 127
Table 41. When participants joined the BC CRT Review ............................................. 128
Table 42. BC CRT Review accountability scores ......................................................... 130
Table 43. Sovereign participant accountability scores for the BC CRT Review ............ 131
Table 44. Stakeholder participant accountability scores for the BC CRT Review ......... 132
Table 45. BC CRT Review information scores ............................................................ 142
Table 46. BC CRT Review stakeholder information scores .......................................... 142
Table 47. BC CRT Review government official information scores ............................. 143
Table 48. BC CRT Review information sharing scores ................................................ 148
Table 49. Information sharing construct scale term definitions ..................................... 149
Table 50. BC CRT Review inclusivity scores .............................................................. 152
Table 51. BC CRT Review sovereign inclusivity scores............................................... 153
Table 52. BC CRT Review stakeholder inclusivity scores ............................................ 154
Table 53. Important aspects of the basin context for the BC CRT Review .................... 165
Table 54. BC CRT Review decision scores .................................................................. 169
Table 55. BC CRT Review sovereign decision scores .................................................. 170
Table 56. BC CRT Review stakeholder decision scores ............................................... 171
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table
Page
Table 57. BC CRT Review byproduct counts............................................................... 174
Table 58. Most important byproducts of the BC CRT Review...................................... 175
Table 59. Example byproducts of the BC CRT Review ................................................ 177
Table 60. Summary of BC CRT Review Water GPA accountability, information, and
inclusivity results ......................................................................................................... 179
Table 61. Water GPA examination of BC CRT Review context ................................... 184
Table 62. BC CRT Review lessons learned for future water governance processes ...... 187
Table 63. Potential challenges to following recommendations and lessons learned....... 192
Table 64. US CRT 2014/2024 Review Public Meetings ............................................... 202
Table 65. Summary of Changes from Working Draft To Draft US Regional
Recommendation ......................................................................................................... 206
Table 66. Public comment themes on Draft US Regional Recommendation ................. 209
Table 67. Summary of changes from Draft to Final US Regional Recommendation ..... 213
Table 68. Sampling approach for the US 2014/2024 CRT Review case study .............. 217
Table 69. Type of Participant Involvement in the US CRT 2014/2024 Review ............ 218
Table 70. When Participants Joined US CRT 2014/2024 Review ................................. 218
Table 71. US CRT 2014/2024 Review accountability scores ........................................ 220
Table 72. Stakeholder accountability scores for the US CRT 2014/2024 Review ......... 222
Table 73. Sovereign accountability scores for the US CRT 2014/2024 Review ............ 223
Table 74. US CRT 2014/2024 Review information scores ........................................... 234
Table 75. US CRT 2014/2024 Review sovereign information scores ........................... 234
Table 76. US CRT 2014/2024 Review stakeholder information scores ......................... 235
Table 77. US CRT 2014/2024 Review information sharing scores ............................... 238
Table 78. Information sharing construct scale term definitions ..................................... 239
Table 79. US CRT 2014/2024 Review inclusivity scores ............................................. 242
Table 80. US CRT 2014/2024 Review sovereign inclusivity scores ............................. 243
Table 81. US CRT 2014/2024 Review stakeholder inclusivity scores .......................... 244
Table 82. Sources of ability to influence policy issues and technical studies ................ 247
Table 83. Important aspects of the basin context for the US CRT 2014/204 Review .... 251
Table 84. US CRT 2014/2024 Review decision scores................................................. 255
LIST OF TABLES (continued)
Table
Page
Table 85. US CRT 2014/2024 Review sovereign decision scores ................................. 256
Table 86. US CRT 2014/2024 Review stakeholder decision scores .............................. 256
Table 87. Themes of why the US Regional Recommendation does not reflect US CRT
2014/2024 participant or region views ......................................................................... 258
Table 88. US CRT 2014/2024 Review byproduct counts ............................................. 261
Table 89. Notable differences in stakeholder and sovereign byproduct responses* ....... 262
Table 90. Most important byproducts of the US CRT 2014/2024 Review .................... 263
Table 91. Example byproducts of the US CRT 2014/2024 Review .............................. 264
Table 92. Summary of Water GPA accountability, information, and inclusivity results 266
Table 93. Water GPA examination of context in US CRT 2014/2024 Review .............. 270
Table 94. US CRT 2014/2024 Review lessons learned for future processes ................. 273
Table 95. Potential challenges to following lessons learned ......................................... 278
Table 96. Additional codes for analysis of link between a process and its decision....... 284
Table 97. Additional codes for analysis of link between a process and its byproducts .. 284
Table 98. Statements on what influenced the BC Provincial Decision .......................... 285
Table 99. Statements on what influenced the US Regional Recommendation ............... 291
Table 100. Statements on what influenced byproducts in the BC CRT Review ............ 298
Table 101. What influenced BC CRT Review byproducts ............................................ 299
Table 102. Statements on what influenced byproducts in the US CRT 2014/2024 Review
.................................................................................................................................... 302
Table 103. What influenced US CRT 2014/2024 Review byproducts........................... 303
Table 104. Summary of research questions, objectives, and findings ............................ 315
Table 105. Assessment of Water GPA as feasible evaluation framework ..................... 322
Table 106. Summary of lessons learned from both case studies .................................... 324
Table 107. Challenges in case study research and my strategies to address them .......... 330
Table 108. Water GPA process category primary codes ............................................... 364
Table 109. Water GPA decision codes ......................................................................... 364
Table 110. Water GPA byproduct codes ...................................................................... 365
Table 111. Water GPA process category secondary codes............................................ 366
1
1 Introduction
1.1 Improving Water Governance
Goal seven of the United Nations (UN) Millennium Development Goals seeks to
ensure environmental sustainability. Target 7.C specifically seeks to “halve, by 2015, the
proportion of the population without sustainable access to safe drinking water and basic
sanitation” (UN World Water Assessment Programme, 2003, p. 110). While this goal was
reached in 2010, 768 million people still lack access to an improved source of drinking
water and due to concerns about the safety of some improved drinking water sources the
number of people without access to safe drinking water may be twice that figure (World
Health Organization & UNICEF, 2013). It is estimated that 2.5 billion people lack access
to basic sanitation (World Health Organization & UNICEF, 2013). At the heart of these
problems is not an insufficient supply of water or lack of technical solutions, but an issue,
or crisis, of governance (Norman, Cohen, & Bakker, 2013; Stålgren, 2006). The UN
World Water Assessment Programme (2006, p. 7) found that “the capacity of countries to
provide water supply and sanitation for all…depends to a large extent on their ability to
establish sound and effective governance systems.” Therefore, water governance is one
way by which countries are attempting to address the global problem of lack of access to
safe drinking water and basic sanitation (Mwanza, 2005; Uhlendahl, Salian, Casarotto, &
Doetsch, 2011). Water governance is also a potential way to address environmental
degradation (UN World Water Assessment Programme, 2006).
Scholars define governance as how actors choose goals and the means by which
they pursue those goals (Huitema et al., 2009). It incorporates both formal and informal
institutions, and therefore includes the structure, organization, laws, and regulations of a
2
government and the various relationships, norms, and rules present in a society (Cosens,
Gunderson, & Chaffin, 2014; Huitema et al., 2009). Water governance can be defined as
the “manner in which authority is acquired and exercised on behalf of the public in
developing, utilizing, and protecting a nation’s water resources”(US Agency for
International Development, 2009, p. 3). Water governance can be described in terms of
structure (i.e., policies, laws, and organizations), functions (e.g., medium to long term
planning, allocating and distributing water, monitoring and enforcing water quality,
protecting ecology, and constructing/ maintaining facilities), and processes (i.e., how
decisions are made) (US Agency for International Development, 2009).
In order to improve water governance, researchers have made significant efforts
to identify principles of good water governance and incorporate them into water
governance at the local, regional, national, and global scale (Bakker, 2002; Esty, 2006;
Hearns, Paisley, & Henshaw, 2008; Lockwood, 2010; Mwanza, 2005; Rogers & Hall,
2003; Schulz, 2007). Suhardiman and Giordano (2012) suggest that moving forward
researchers should consider process-focused analysis, as opposed to state-centered
analysis. Process-focused analysis is simply analyzing how decisions are made and play
out in implementation of the decision (Suhardiman & Giordano, 2012). This analysis may
include examining how different actors and their access to resources influence the
process (Suhardiman & Giordano, 2012), the scalar disconnect in transboundary water
governance (Suhardiman, Giordano, & Molle, 2012), and the implications of a decision
(Molle, Wester, & Hirsch, 2010). Suhardiman and Giordano (2012) reason that by
analyzing water governance processes one might better understand how actors form
networks and influence decisions and how certain actions result in different outcomes.
3
In my work, I take up Suhardiman and Giordano’s (2012) recommendation that
future research concentrate on process-focused analysis. In the next section of my
introduction, I highlight the challenges of process-focused analysis and explore why
academics and practitioners have shied away from evaluation of decision processes.
1.2 Problem Statement
If we accept that the water challenges we face today are a crisis of governance,
then it makes sense to evaluate water governance in order to identify what we need to
improve. A number of frameworks for evaluating water governance exist, but evaluation
using these frameworks rarely occurs (Bellamy, Walker, Mcdonald, & Syme, 2001;
Chess, 2000; Frame, Gunton, & Day, 2004). I reviewed the existing literature on water
governance decision making processes and found that process-focused analysis or
evaluation faces two primary challenges: 1) the need for an operationalized framework
for feasible evaluation of water governance processes and 2) an understanding of what, if
anything, about a decision making process contributes to a desirable outcome (i.e., does
how we make decisions in water governance lead to better decisions).
In regards to the first challenge, existing frameworks are often not
comprehensive, systematic, and/or fully operationalized. Based on my review of the
literature, I found that for feasible and useful application by water managers, an
evaluation framework must be meaningful (characteristics evaluated should have
implications for the outcomes of the process), comprehensive (cover the full scope of
good governance characteristics), streamlined (contained within one framework) and
operationalized (explicit on what and how to measure metric(s) for each characteristic).
Such a framework does not currently exist. Bellamy et al. (2001, p. 2) note that:
4
No clear evaluative frameworks have emerged to guide continuous
program development in the way natural resource management initiatives
contribute to on-going improvements in resource use sustainability and
social well-being of the communities concerned.
The current evaluation and assessment frameworks tend to be either too broad and
generalized or too narrow and specific. For example, some frameworks say that water
governance processes should include transparency, accountability, and participation, but
do not explain how to measure success in those areas (Table 1). They use vague
definitions to describe desired characteristics or components of the process. While this
may be part of an effort to allow organizations to tailor their process to the specific
circumstances of the basin, the lack of guidance makes it difficult to determine how to
evaluate a process as well as pursue a consistent approach with different evaluators.
Other frameworks focus on one process characteristic (e.g., participation) and often list
more specific indicators to evaluate (Table 2). However, in most cases, it is simply
impractical to apply multiple different frameworks to evaluate a process.
Table 1. Broad frameworks for natural resource and water governance
Framework
Process Characteristics
MENA Regional Water Governance
 Participation
 Accountability
Benchmarking Project (ReWaB)
 Transparency
 Responsiveness
Concept and Approach Framework

Equity
 Integrative
(ReWaB, 2009)
 Culture
 Actor Orientation
Unifying Negotiations Framework
 Institutions
 Incentives
(Daniels et al., 2012)
 Agency
 Cognition
 Outcome Reached
 Relationship of Parties
Braving the Currents Framework
 Process Quality
to Outcome
(d'Estree and Colby, 2004)
 Outcome Quality
 Relationship Between
 Social Capital
Parties
Three Pillars and One Beam for
 Inclusive governance
 Socially robust
Evaluation of River Basin Governance
knowledge
 Transparent
(Pereira and Quintana, 2009)
assessment
 Extended peer review
 Context
Co-operative Natural Resource
 Power
Management Assessment Framework
 Conditions
 Process
(Plummer and Armitage, 2007)
 Representation
Table 1 includes examples of broad frameworks for ‘good’ water governance that only define
desired characteristics in general terms which makes application challenging.
5
Table 2. Examples of detailed indicators for evaluating public participation
Framework
Indicators/Metrics
 Integrity and accountability
 Influence
 Fair notice and time
Meaningful Participation in
 Inclusiveness and adequate representation
Environmental Assessment
 Fair and open dialogue
(Stewart and Sinclair, 2007)
 Multiple and appropriate methods
 Adequate and accessible information
 Informed participation
 Degree
o Duration of involvement
o Research effort
o Numbers/diversity of participants
o Depth/intensity of involvement
o Power (though that’s complicated)
Public Participation in Scientific
Research: a Framework for
 Quality (extent to which a project’s goals and activities
Deliberate Design (Shirk et al.,
align with, respond to, and are relevant to needs and
2012)
interests of public participants
o Credibility and trust
o Fairness
o Responsiveness
o Relevance
 Agency
 Empower
 Consult
Public Participation Spectrum
(International Association of Public
 Collaborate
 Inform
Participation, 2000)
 Involve
 Citizen control
 Consultation
Ladder of Citizen Participation
 Delegated power
 Informing
(Arnstein, 1969)
 Partnership
 Therapy
 Placation
 Manipulation
 Resolution/Prevention
 Consultation
A New Ladder of Citizen
 Litigation
 Information-Feedback
Participation (Connor, 1988)
 Mediation
 Education
 Joint Planning
 Communication
 Partnership/Community
Control
Levels of Co-management (Berkes,
 Co-operation
1994)
 Management Boards
 Consultation
 Advisory Committees
 Informing
Table 2 provides a list of example frameworks for developing or evaluating participation in a water
governance process. These frameworks often offer metrics for the components of participation
but do not cover issues outside of participation and may be too detailed to use in conjunction with
other frameworks.
The second challenge of process evaluation centers on whether or not the
structure and content of a water governance decision making process are linked to
particular desired outcomes. Some evidence exists supporting the idea that “good”
governance processes result in “good” outcomes (Shirk et al., 2012). Other studies found
6
that traditionally accepted practices of good governance may not meet the intended goals
of those practices or the link is unclear. Norman and Bakker (2009) and Brown (2013)
both found that increased participation did not lead to greater empowerment of local
actors or more equitable distribution of water. For adaptive co-management processes,
Plummer and FitzGibbon (2004) note that empirical evidence pertaining to the outcomes
of co-management is limited. Simply put, it is not clear which aspects of a governance
process are universally required or most critical for achieving goals or water management
objectives.
1.3 Research Questions and Objectives
If we see decision making processes in water governance as a potential solution to
the water challenges around the world and hope to evaluate and improve those processes
we need to address the two challenges I identified above. Namely, we should find a
feasible way to evaluate decision making processes and work to better understand what
aspects of water governance processes are most important to achieving water governance
outcomes. To address those two challenges facing process-focused analysis of water
governance I seek to answer four questions. My first research question is:
What are characteristics of a “good” water governance process?
(Research Question 1)
I address this question in Chapter 2, where I developed an operationalized framework
for evaluating water governance processes based on existing frameworks for water
governance, public participation, and conflict management (Objective 1). To develop the
framework I followed a multi-step approach (Figure 1). I reviewed the scholarly and grey
literature in the areas of water governance, natural resource management, and
7
collaborative processes to identify commonly agreed upon characteristics for effective, or
good, water governance processes. After identifying the most critical aspects of a good
water governance decision making process, I operationalized the new synthesis
framework by utilizing the same literature to determine what to consider as an indicator
for each characteristic and how best to assess it. I present A more detailed explanation of
the literature review approach and resulting synthesis framework, the Water Governance
Process Assessment (Water-GPA) in Chapter 2.
Step 1. Review existing knowledge
Surveyed literature to collect:
• Frameworks (versus theories or models)
• That are theoretically or empirically derived
• With a socio-ecological system scale focus
• For water governance or natural resource governance
• That are applicable to decision making processes
Step 2. Organize existing knowledge
Created and applied a typology for describing different kinds of frameworks:
• Phase-focused
• Component-focused
• Characteristic focused
Step 3. Distill critical categories
Developed synthesis framework by:
• Cataloguing all of the pieces of the existing frameworks
• Combining overlapping pieces
• Developing a concept map to understand the relationships between the pieces and
determine major themes
• Identifying four central categories (i.e., context, inclusivity, information, and accountability)
Step 4. Operationalize new framework
Returned to the original frameworks to:
• Determine how they evaluated each of the four categories
• Flesh out the synthesis framework in a such a way that it is both thorough and practical,
allowing for feasible assessment
Figure 1. Overview of approach for accomplishing Objective 1
8
Chapters 3 through 6 address my second research question:
How can those characteristics be used to evaluate water governance
processes? (Research Question 2)
To answer this question, I adopted the objective to evaluate both the Canadian and
American reviews of the CRT, using the framework developed (the Water Governance
Process Assessment or Water GPA) (Objective 2). To gather the data needed to evaluate
the US CRT 2014/2024 Review and BC CRT Review I conducted 38 semi-structured
interviews with individuals who participated in the two reviews. I interviewed a crosssection of review participants from a variety of different backgrounds and types of
involvement in the reviews using a stratified-quota sampling approach. Interviews ranged
from twenty minutes to two hours. I transcribed, coded, and analyzed the interviews with
the qualitative analysis software QSR NVivo. In addition to participating in a semistructured interview, 34 interviewees and 12 additional review participants filled out a
survey to assist in collecting the information needed for application of the framework. I
transcribed the surveys and analyzed them using basic statistics. I used the Water GPA as
a framework for my analysis. Greater detail about the methods used for both my
qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis are included in Chapter 3. I
present the results as two case study applications of the framework in Chapters 5 (BC
CRT Review) and 6 (US CRT 2014/2024 Review).1
Third, I seek to answer the question:
What are lessons learned for good water governance from the Canadian and
American reviews of the CRT? (Research Question 3)
1
As some may only read the case study chapters of my dissertation, I include a summary of the methods in
those chapters so they can function as stand-alone documents.
9
In Chapters 5 and 6, I worked to identify barriers to and building blocks for good water
governance from the two programs for future CRT-related efforts and transboundary
water governance processes in general (Objective 3). Using the results from the same
semi-structured interviews described above for Research Question 2, I gleaned lessons
learned from the two reviews for future application in the Columbia River Basin and
other water governance processes in similar basins. I include the results for each review
in their respective case study chapters. I address broader lessons in Chapter 8
(Conclusions).
Finally, my fourth research question is:
What characteristics of a water governance process contribute to water
governance outcomes? (Research Question 4)
In Chapter 7, I use the Water GPA and CRT case studies to examine what
characteristics of those processes contributed to their respective process outcomes
(Objective 4). My hypothesis is that the four categories of the Water GPA
(accountability, information, inclusivity, and context) influenced both the decisions and
the byproducts of the US CRT 2014/2024 Review and the BC CRT Review. To test this
hypothesis, I asked participants if the accountability, information, inclusivity, context,
and other aspects part of and outside of the US CRT 2014/2024 Review and the BC CRT
Review processes shaped or influenced the decision (in my case studies that would be
either the US Regional Recommendation or BC Provincial Decision). I also asked the
review participants to identify the three byproducts from the process that were most
important to them and then up to three byproducts they wished had resulted from the
process (or wished increased more than they did). I then asked them to explain what
10
about the process contributed to, worked against, or would have helped promote positive
changes in the byproducts.
Using QSR NVivo software I manually coded the interview transcripts
deductively using the Water GPA; that is I identified all statements where a participant
talks about some aspect of the process influencing or not influencing the decision or
byproducts. I coded these statements for which aspect of the process the participant was
referring to (i.e., accountability, inclusivity, context, and information as well as their
secondary codes). Statements that did not fit under any of these four primary codes were
coded as “Other” which I inductively coded to identifying subthemes that may explain
what influenced the two review decisions and their byproducts. I then went through all
those coded statements a second time to identify the kind of influence or lack of influence
the participant discussed.
In Chapter 8, I tie things together summarizing my findings, reviewing caveats
and limitations of my work, and outlining a path for future research.
1.4 Theoretical Underpinnings
As stated above, to develop a framework for evaluating “good” water governance
processes one must first define what “good” means. Likewise, there is no consensus on
principles of good water governance. Therefore, I use resilience theory and adaptive
governance (AG) to identify the underlying goal of water governance processes and serve
as the foundation for the synthesis framework. That is, good water governance processes
are assumed to adopt a socio-ecological systems approach and promote resilience of the
socio-ecological system via adaptive governance.
11
1.4.1 Resilience of Social-Ecological Systems
In their book, Linking Social and Ecological Systems: Management Practices
and Social Mechanisms for Building Resilience, Berkes and Folke (1998) present “socialecological systems” (SES) as a conceptual way to perceive relationship and dynamics
between human systems and the natural environment. They argue that managing the
system requires emphasis on both the social institutions of the social system and natural
processes of the ecological system (Berkes & Folke, 1998). Like many before me, I view
river basins as SESs and therefore when I talk about water governance I am referring to
governance of the SES (Cosens et al., 2014; Gosnell & Kelly, 2010; Huitema et al., 2009;
Olsson et al., 2006; Ostrom, 2009; Pahl-Wostl, Holtz, Kastens, & Knieper, 2010).
If we view a river basin as a SES, that system has different characteristics,
structures and behaviors (Meadows, 2008). One attribute of the system, resilience, can
be defined as “a measure of the amount of perturbation a social-ecological system can
withstand while maintaining its structure and functions; it describes the ability of a
complex system to continue to provide the full range of ecosystem services to in the face
of change” (Cosens et al., 2014, p. 7; Walker & Salt, 2006, p. 1). Originally presented by
C.S. Holling (1973) as an attribute of ecological systems, scholars also see the concept as
applicable to the social components of a SES (Adger, 2000; C. S. Holling, 2001; Lebel,
Anderies, Campbell, & Folke, 2006; Nkhata, Breen, & Freimund, 2008; Walker, Holling,
Carpenter, & Kinzig, 2004; Walker & Salt, 2006).
1.4.2 Adaptive Management and Adaptive Governance
Adaptive management (AM) and governance have been identified as ways to
promote resilience of a social-ecological system due to their ability to deal with
12
uncertainty, change, and complexity (Folke et al., 2010; Folke, Hahn, Olsson, & Norberg,
2005; Huitema et al., 2009; Lebel et al., 2006; Olsson et al., 2006; Pahl-Wostl, 2007;
Walker et al., 2004). Therefore, I use resilience theory as it is applied through adaptive
governance to direct the formation of the water governance decision process evaluation
framework. In the following paragraphs, I describe both adaptive management and
adaptive governance as well as explain how they relate to resilience.
Lee (1999) defines adaptive management as a methodological innovation in
resource management by which policies are implemented as experiments in order to learn
from and design better policies. It is based on the principles of the scientific method as a
middle ground between trail-and-error and laboratory experimentation (Lee, 1999). PahlWostl (2008) defines adaptive management as “a systematic process for improving
management policies and practices by learning from the outcomes of implemented
management strategies” (p. 1). Adaptive management is commonly described in terms of
the adaptive management process where one: 1) assesses the situation, 2) designs the
management/policy scheme, 3) implements the policy, 4) monitors the outcomes, 5)
evaluates the management procedure, and 6) adjusts the policy and 7) starts the cycle all
over (Olsson, Folke, & Berkes, 2004; Plummer, 2009; J. T. Scholz & Stiftel, 2005). It
differs from traditional management in that failure is expected and that policies will be
improved by learning from those failures (Lee, 1999). An early critique of adaptive
management was that it needed to incorporate the social context in order to take on a
social-ecological systems (SES) approach. Folke et al. (2005) point out that adaptive
governance is concerned with legitimacy and accountability, which are not explicitly
noted in adaptive management.
13
While there is no universal definition for adaptive governance (AG) some
scholars define it as: 1) the integration of science, policy and decision making in systems
that assume and manage for change as opposed to against it (Dietz, Ostrom, & Stern,
2003) and 2) “the evolution of new governance institutions capable of generating longterm, sustainable policy solutions to wicked problems through coordinated efforts
involving previously independent systems of users, knowledge, authorities, and organized
interests” (J. T. Scholz & Stiftel, 2005, p. 5). It is also viewed as a multi-level approach
to governance advocating polycentrism and redundancy in management (Huitema et al.,
2009).
While different concepts, the two are linked. Adaptive governance is seen as both
a foundation for and way of pursuing adaptive management. Cosens and Williams (2012)
describe the relationship between the two concepts as AG is the governance regime
needed to provide the opportunity to employ an adaptive management approach to
resource (in this case river) management. Folke et al. (2005) argue that “adaptive
governance is operationalized through adaptive co-management systems and that the
roles of social capital, focusing on networks, leadership, and trust are emphasized in this
context” (p. 444). Huitema et al. (2009) identify four institutional prescriptions from
adaptive management for adaptive water governance, polycentricity, public participation,
experimentation, and application at a bioregional scale. Olsson et al. (2006) discuss how
adaptive governance provides a forum for the AM.
In their review of the AG literature, Chaffin et al. (2014), simply define adaptive
governance as governance that allows adaptive processes, such as adaptive management,
14
to emerge. The scholars involved in the National Socio-Environmental Synthesis Center
Adaptive Water Governance Project (AWG Project) identify adaptive governance as:
…appropriate when the system is complex (e.g. lies within multiple
jurisdictions), the system faces change with a degree of uncertainty (e.g.
climate change) and the system is approaching a potential threshold or
regime shift as evidenced by increasing conflict over resources (e.g.
litigation), increasing scarcity, or actual identification of an approaching
threshold by law or science (Cosens et al., 2014, p. 10).
As transboundary river basins cover nearly 50% of the earth’s land surface (thus they
reside in multiple jurisdictions) (Wolf, Yoffe, & Giordano, 2003) and the world’s river
basins face high uncertainty and potentially dramatic consequences of climate change
(IPCC, 2014), it is hard to imagine a river basin that should not at least consider the
potential usefulness of adaptive governance.
1.4.3 Adaptive Governance, Good Governance, and Process
I started my introduction talking about the importance of governance in
addressing water resource problems. More specifically, the UN and others call for ‘good
governance.’ Although there is not strong agreement on a definition of good governance
it generally involves concepts such as transparency, accountability, inclusivity,
legitimacy, and fairness (Lockwood, 2010; UN World Water Assessment Programme,
2003; US Agency for International Development, 2009). Suhardiman and Giordano
(2012) recommend that future research in water governance, particularly transboundary
water governance, center on process-focused analysis.
At the same time other researchers identified SES resilience via AM and AG as a
way to deal with the complexity and uncertainty inherent to river systems. Bringing these
two worlds together, Chaffin et al. (2014) suggest researchers investigate the relationship
between adaptive governance and the principles of good governance. The AWG Project
15
examines what role law may play in either preparing a system for adaptive governance or
facilitating the adaptive governance process (Cosens et al., 2014). More specifically
researchers in that project are assessing the role of law and adaptive governance in
governance structure, capacity, and process (Cosens et al., 2014). Therefore it seems
timely to build on this scholarship and explore the relatedness and compatibility of
adaptive governance and good governance concepts. Do they complement one another?
Are they redundant?
As you will see in the next chapter, I include many frameworks related to AM and
AG in the development of my synthesis framework. However, I do not limit my search to
AM and AG frameworks. Rather I also incorporate frameworks targeting ‘good
governance.’ This allows me to explore how the blend of concepts of adaptive
governance with the principles of good governance fit into one evaluation framework for
water governance decision making processes.
1.5 Chapter Summary and Conclusion
In this chapter, I presented the crisis of water governance that stands in the way of
a number of water challenges we face today. If we consider water governance to be
composed of three parts, organization, function, and process those are three areas where
we can seek to improve water governance to address this crisis. Suhardiman and
Giordano (2012) recommend that future research center on process-focused analysis. I
follow their recommendation and in my examination of the literature found that two
challenges exist for evaluating water governance decision making processes: 1) the lack
of a mid-level, operationalized framework for feasible evaluation of water governance
processes and 2) a lack of empirical evidence of what about a decision making process
16
contributes to a desirable outcome (i.e., does how we make decisions in water governance
lead to better decisions).
To address these challenges I proposed four research questions and corresponding
objectives as well as summarized my methods for each (Table 3). I then explained the
theoretical foundations and assumptions I used to answer my research questions. In the
next chapter, I tackle my first research question: What are characteristics of a “good”
water governance process? In Chapter 2, I develop an operationalized framework for
evaluating water governance processes based on existing frameworks for water
governance, public participation, and conflict management.
Table 3. Summary of research questions, objectives, and methods
Research Questions
Research Objectives
Methods
Research Question 1 What are characteristics
of a “good” water
governance process?
Objective 1 - Develop an
operationalized framework for
systematically evaluating water
governance processes based on
existing frameworks for water
governance, public participation,
and conflict management.
and synthesize concepts from
existing frameworks
 Developed synthesis
framework
 Determined metrics/indicators
for each characteristic and
how calculate/assign values
for each metric
Research Question 2 How can those
characteristics be used to
evaluate water
governance processes?
Objective 2 - Evaluate both the
Canadian and American reviews
of the CRT the using the
framework developed (the Water
Governance Process
Assessment or Water GPA).
 Interviewed and surveyed
Research Question 3 What are lessons learned
for good water
governance from the
Canadian and American
reviews of the CRT?
Objective 3 - Identify barriers to
and building blocks for good
water governance from the two
programs and glean lessons for
future CRT-related efforts and
water governance processes.
 Reviewed literature to identify
process participants from
federal agencies, First
Nations/Tribes,
states/province, local
governments, and
stakeholders
 Transcribed recordings
 Analyzed transcripts using
NVivo software
 Applied synthesis framework
(Water GPA) to evaluate
decision making process
o Identified what about
process worked well and
what could be improved
o Examined link between
process and outcomes
Research Question 4 Objective 4 - Use the Water
What characteristics of a
GPA and CRT case studies to
water governance
examine what characteristics of
process contribute to
those processes contributed to
water governance
their respective process
outcomes?
outcomes.
Table 3 provides a summary of my research question, objectives, and methods.
17
2 Synthesis Framework Development
To answer my research questions “What are characteristics of a “good” water
governance process?” and “How can those characteristics be used to evaluate water
governance processes?” I reviewed the existing literature on good water governance
processes and their evaluation. From the literature I developed a synthesis framework for
evaluating water governance processes. This chapter explains my literature review
approach and how I developed the synthesis framework. Then I present the synthesis
framework, which I call the Water Governance Process Assessment (Water GPA).
2.1 Literature Review
My first step in the development of the synthesis framework was to survey the
water and natural resource governance literature to identify existing frameworks to draw
from. I set a list of six criteria for frameworks to be included in my synthesis framework
(Table 4). I chose these criteria because I felt they addressed the core aspects of my
question and limited the scope of the literature review to manageable size.
Table 4: Framework inclusion criteria, explanation, and justification
Framework (versus theory or model) - I follow the delineation put forth by Elinor Ostrom and
others of what makes a framework, theory, or model. A framework “identifies, categorizes, and
organizes those factors deemed relevant to understanding some phenomena” (McGinnis, 2011).
Theoretically or empirically derived - Frameworks must be either derived theoretically (based in
theory) or empirically (based on experiment or observation).
Socio-ecological and system scale focus - Frameworks must be applicable at the larger system
scale and incorporate both the social and ecological components foundational to socio-ecological
systems and resilience.
Water governance or natural resource governance - Frameworks were developed with water
governance or natural resource governance in mind. This means they are broader in scope than
the participation and collaboration literature, which have already been surveyed or reviewed
(Carr, Blöschl, & Loucks, 2012).
Applicable to decision making processes - Frameworks must be intended and designed for
application to decision making processes
Table 4 presents the criteria I developed for including a water or natural resource governance
framework in my literature review for the development of my synthesis framework.
18
Using these criteria, I identified 22 frameworks (Table 5). An initial review of the
frameworks reveals that each is one of three types: 1) characteristic focused, which
describe the qualities a good water governance process seeks to achieve, 2) phase
focused, which lay out the stages a process works through, and 3) component focused,
which list what to include or consider during process development or implementation.
Table 5: Frameworks identified for inclusion in the synthesis framework
Framework with Citation and Organized by Type
Phase-Focused (3 frameworks)
Adaptive Participatory Multicriteria Framework for Climate Adaptation Decision Making
(Munaretto, Siciliano, & Turvani, 2014)
Management and Transition Framework (process component only) (Pahl-Wostl et al., 2010)
Human Environment Systems Framework (R. Scholz, 2011)
Component-Focused (13 frameworks)
Resilience Design (Curtin, 2014)
Braving the Currents Framework (D’Estree & Colby, 2004)
Unifying Negotiations Framework (Daniels, Walker, & Emborg, 2012)
Framework for Analysis of Process Mechanisms in Regime Building (Hearns, 2010)
Institutional Prescriptions of Adaptive (Co-) Management from a Governance Perspective
(Huitema et al., 2009)
Sustainable Water Governance Index (Iribarnegaray & Seghezzo, 2012)
Socio-Ecological Systems Framework (Ostrom, 2009)
Social Learning (Pahl-Wostl, Craps, & Dewulf, 2007; Pahl-Wostl, 2002, 2009; Pahl-Wostl,
Sendzimir, et al., 2007)
Characteristics of adaptive co-management and generic process parameters for evaluation
(Plummer & FitzGibbon, 2004)
Watershed Governance Prism (Parkes et al., 2010)
Three Pillars and One Beam for Quality of River Basin Governance Processes (Pereira &
Quintana, 2009)
Co-operative Natural Resource Management Assessment Framework (Plummer & FitzGibbon,
2007)
Conceptual Structure for Evaluating Policy Analytic Activities (Thissen & Twaalfhoven, 2001)
Characteristic-Focused (6 frameworks)
A “Thick” Analysis of Environmental Decision-Making (Adger et al., 2003)
Principles of Good Governance (Commission of the European Communities, 2001)
Principles of Good Water Governance (UN World Water Assessment Programme, 2003) as
explained by the MENA Regional Water Governance Benchmarking Project Concept and
Approach Framework (US Agency for International Development, 2009)
Missing Links in Global Water Governance: a Processes-Oriented Analysis (Pahl-Wostl,
Conca, Kramer, Maestu, & Schmidt, 2013)
Global Water Partnership’s criteria for effective water governance (Rogers & Hall, 2003)
Legal Framework for Good Transboundary Water Governance (Schulz, 2007)
Table 5 lists the frameworks I found in my literature review and incorporated into my synthesis
framework. I use a shortened version of the source title for un-named frameworks.
19
These different types of frameworks work well with one another and, in some
ways, are nested within one another (Figure 2). Phase-focused frameworks provide an
outline of stages to consider within a decision making process. Component frameworks
suggest what components should be considered within a particular phase and
characteristic frameworks offer or cross-cutting issues to promote (e.g., transparency).
For example, the phase-focused framework by Munaretto et al. (2014), Adaptive
Participatory Multicriteria Framework for Climate Adaptation Decision Making, lists
three phases of a decision making process, 1) identify starting conditions, 2) processes of
decision/process phase, and 3) response phase. Then within the process phase they
identify four sub-phases, 1) problem identification and goal setting, 2) identification of
adaptation alternatives, 3) identification of evaluation criteria and weights, and 4) ranking
alternatives. The component-focused framework, the Unifying Negotiations Framework,
by Daniels et al. (2012) pairs well with Munaretto et al.’s framework, by pointing out that
during different phases of the process, the lead on the process should consider culture,
institutions, agency, incentives, cognition, and actor orientation experience at the micro,
meso, and macro scales. While considering those components during the different stages
of the process, the leader of the process (or “process lead”) can also work to promote the
characteristics of good water governance from the MENA ReWaB Concept and
Approach Framework (a characteristic-focused framework), namely participation,
transparency, equity, accountability, responsiveness, and integration.
20
PhaseFocused
•Lay out the different phases, or stages, a process should
work through
•Provide a structure for pursuing components or
characteristics
ComponentFocused
•List components to be included or considered during
process development or implementation
•Provide means by which to pursue desired characteristic
Characteristic- •Note characteristics a process should seek to achieve
Focused
•Describe the desired qualities for a phase or component
Figure 2: A typology for water governance decision making process frameworks
2.2 Development of the Water Governance Process Assessment
To begin the process of creating a synthesis framework, I inventoried all of the
framework ‘pieces’ from the characteristic and component frameworks noting the term
used, citation, and term definition (if given). From there, I used the definitions of the
different framework terms to identify and combine duplicate and overlapping pieces from
the different frameworks. That step narrowed the list to 61 characteristics or components
a good water governance decision making process should consider or include. I
developed a concept map of the 61 characteristics and components in order to explore the
relationships between them and see if the number of unique terms could be reduced to a
more manageable number for practitioners trying to develop or asses a decision making
process (Figure 3). I excluded phase-focused frameworks because, instead of detailing
what to consider in a decision making process or how the process should unfold, they
focus on the recommended steps for making a decision. However, while the specific
phases from the phase-focused frameworks were not included in the concept map, the
spirit of the phases was represented by the characteristics and components. For example,
all three phase-focused frameworks, emphasize the importance of assessing the current
21
state of the basin as well as identifying the problem/task at hand and goals of the process
(Munaretto et al., 2014; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2010; R. Scholz, 2011). These concepts are
covered in the characteristics and components proposed by other frameworks.
Concept maps are diagrams or graphics that visually represent organized
knowledge (Cañas et al., 2003; Novak & Cañas, 2008). Founded in learning theory,
concept mapping has most frequently been used as a tool in education as a means for
students and instructors to organize course content or assess student understanding.
Concept mapping is one variation of a technique for visualizing an abstract and/or
complex situation or set of ideas. Other variations of the method include situation,
conflict, and institutional mapping (Aligica, 2006; Chaffin, 2014; Daniels & Walker,
2001, 2012; C. L. Smith, 2002; Stimie et al., 2001; Wehr, 1979). At the root of each of
these forms of mapping, is that the nodes represent an idea, concept, organization, (i.e., a
noun) and the links between the nodes denote some type of a relationship. A number of
scholars and practitioners in the natural resources have employed the method to better
understand a conflict (Vinett & Jarvis, 2012; Wehr, 1979), complex socio-ecological
systems (Daniels & Walker, 2001, 2012), the relationships of various organizations under
a particular management scheme (Chaffin, 2014; C. L. Smith, 2002; Stimie et al., 2001),
and interdisciplinary communication (Heemskerk, Wilson, & Pavao-Zuckerman, 2003).
Here I use concept mapping as a way to visually organize inter-locking and
interdependent concepts associated with good decision making in water governance.
From this visual I identified the themes and components to include in the synthesis
framework.
Polycentric
governance
Ethics
Procedurally just
(fairness and
satisfaction)
Needs
A form of
Consider
Helps
determine if
Might improve
or hinder
Equity
Responsiveness
Problem type
or task
Shapes
Rule of law
Transactive
decision making
Can
improve
Seeks to
achieve
Legitimacy
Availability
impacts
Broader eco
context
Should
include
Actors
involved
Availability impacts
Should
consider & is
affected by
Should
include
Power
Actor orientation
experience
Should
include
Monitoring
Form of
Information
sharing
Should
include
Participation
Should
include
Helps
ensure
Should
include
Should
include
Experimentation
Promotes
Should be
Information/
Knowledge
should be
Coherent
Pluralism and
linkages
Contributes
to
Comprehensive(ness)
Should
include
Aspect of
Impacts
effectiveness of
Should consider
Might
involve
Collaboration
Component
of
Openness
Might
involve
Bio-regional
perspective
Communication
Inclusivity
Influences
Impacts
Linked to
Should
consider
General
relationship
Water
relationship
Agency
Should consider
Requires
Might
involve
Part of
Transparency
Personnel
Relevant
stakeholders
Should
include
Technologies
Representation
Should include
Soc, econ, and
polit setting
Should
include
Shapes
Cognition
Should
include
Shapes
Incentives
Neutral Party
Involvement
Increases
Increases
Governance
system & structure
Should
include
Context/
Conditions
Should
include
Should
include
Impacts
Part of
Should include
Informs
Informs
Accessibility
Might
involve
Includes
formal &
informal
Institutions
Informs
May
inform
Way to promote
Culture
Tied to
Might
promote
or hinder
Accountability
Resource units
Worldviews
Leadership
(who leads)
Seeks to
achieve
Requires
Organization
Part of
May be
dependent on
Inform
Might involve
Resource
system
Values
Underlie
Extended Peer
Review
Should
be
Should include
Key
Should be
Integrative
contributes to
Feedback loops
Accountability
Context
Inclusivity
Information
Helps insure that info is
Socially robust
Figure 3. Simplified concept map of elements for good decision making processes
This concept map features elements from 22 frameworks for good water governance decision making processes. The color of each concept
indicates which of the four framework categories the concept falls under. Ovals with two colors indicate that the concept fits in two categories.
23
In the map displayed in Figure 3, all unique framework pieces serve as the nodes
of the map and the relationships between the pieces are depicted via the links. The links
are either directional (where one term or concept contributed to another) or bi-directional
(where the concepts contributed to each other). Looking at the relationships between the
concepts in the concept map, I saw five clear categories of characteristics: 1) inclusivity,
2) accountability, 3) information and knowledge, 4) context, and 5) efficacy. I define
these themes in Table 6.
Table 6. Characteristic theme definitions
Category and Definition
Context - The various conditions of the basin and
socio-ecological system under which the decision is
being made. Three subcategories of the context are:
social system, ecological system, and the problem.
Example Subcomponents
 Culture, worldviews & values
 Incentives
 Resource system & units
 Relationships
 Social, economic, & political setting
Inclusivity - The degree and quality of inclusion of
interested and affected parties at various stages of the
process, which may take many forms (e.g., direct
participation or representation) to result in meaningful
engagement.
 Participation
 Power & agency
 Representation
Information - The data, information and knowledge
used to make the decision, including all stages of
collection, modeling, experiments, and analysis.




Comprehensiveness
Integrative
Peer review
Socially robust
Accountability - The organization and atmosphere of
the process designed to produce a legitimate decision
based on 1) what is the scope of the decision making
process, 2) who will make the decision, and 3) how the
decision will be made.





Transparency
Rule of law
Leadership
Equity
Responsiveness
Efficacy - The efficiency of the process and its
 Efficiency
effectiveness in reaching a desirable decision and other  Efficacy
positive outcomes
 Cost
This table defines the five themes of good decision making process characteristics.
I used these themes as the starting categories for my synthesis framework for
evaluating decision making processes. After some consideration, I decided to remove
efficacy from the synthesis framework for a couple of reasons. First, efficacy and its
24
related characteristics such as efficiency, cost, effectiveness, are also aspects of the other
four categories and, therefore, efficacy in some way is represented within the framework
in other areas. Second, efficacy cannot yet be measured and evaluated in terms of
process; rather existing indicators are outcome-based (rather than process-based). While
not explicitly included in the framework, aspects of efficacy are implicitly present. The
ultimate goal of this work is to find a way to evaluate and improve processes so they lead
to desired outcomes, which is a form of efficacy.
The remaining four categories (accountability, information, inclusivity, and
context) mirror the four-worlds of perception found in a variety of faith traditions,
psychology, and systems theory. Also referred to as the “four worlds construct” (Wolf,
2008, 2012) and four “levels of reality” (H. Smith, 1992), the concept offers that the
world can be viewed through four lenses, namely the physical, emotional,
intellectual/knowing, and spiritual (Figure 4). Wolf applies the four-worlds construct to
conflict management in water governance arguing that one can use a transformative
approach to guide parties through the four levels in the negotiation process (Wolf, 2008,
2012). The universality of the four worlds construct makes it unsurprising that a similar
structure emerges in what water governance decision making processes should include.
FOUR WORLDS
CONSTRUCT
Spiritual
Intellectual
Emotional
Physical
DECISION PROCESS
CATEGORIES
Accountability
Information
Inclusivity
Context
Figure 4. Mirrored structure of the process categories and four worlds construct
25
The following subsections of this chapter address each of the four categories,
highlighting a definition of the category for the synthesis framework and what the various
frameworks said about the category/characteristic (e.g., reasons for its importance and its
subcomponents).
2.2.1 Context
I define context can as the various conditions of the basin and socio-ecological
system under which the decision is being made. Context serves as the foundation for the
other three categories as context informs how to approach accountability, inclusivity, and
information. The context of the basin and water governance decision guides what
information to collect, who should be involved in the decision, and what efforts might be
legally required or recommended to achieve transparency and legitimacy. Context is
important in water governance decision making processes because it informs what
engagement strategies may be appropriate or mostly likely to be successful (Daniels et
al., 2012). Context also provides the physical, social, and legal constraints within which a
process must work. Context is the hardest category to assess and evaluate. Many
frameworks provide recommendations on “what” to account for when assessing the
context of situation. I observed that these recommendations fall under three general
subcategories: social, ecological, and the problem/issue at hand (Table 7).
Social aspects of context include those related to the legal and geopolitical aspects
of governance. The social aspects of context range from the person-scale, such as
attitudes, cognition, and actor orientation experience, to larger society-scale concepts
such as culture, governance regimes, and the state of the economy (Daniels et al., 2012;
Hearns, 2010; Iribarnegaray & Seghezzo, 2012; Ostrom, 2009; Pahl-Wostl, 2002, 2009;
26
Plummer & FitzGibbon, 2004). The ecological dimension of context includes both the
nature of the water resource as well as the larger ecological system in which it resides
(Ostrom, 2009; Pahl-Wostl, 2002, 2009). The problem/issue subcategory, in many ways,
is a blend of the human and ecological dimensions of the context. When assessing
context in terms of the problem at hand, it is important to determine both the current state
(i.e., what may be unsatisfactory about the social and ecological context at present) and
goal (i.e., what is the desired state based on what is known about the needs and values of
the social system and characteristics of the ecological system).
Table 7. What to consider in terms of context for decision making processes
Social
Ecological
Legal and geopolitical
 Rules and processes of governance
system(s) (Ostrom, 2009)
 Governance structure
 Institutions (formal) (Daniels et al., 2012)
 Property rights regime (Plummer &
FitzGibbon, 2004)
Socioeconomic and cultural
 Social, economic, and political setting
(Ostrom, 2009)
 Actors and institutions (Pahl-Wostl, 2002,
2009)
 Culture, agency, cognition, actor
orientation experience, and institutions
(informal) (Daniels et al., 2012)
 Attitudes, worldview, and values
(Iribarnegaray & Seghezzo, 2012)
Resource-focused
 Characteristics of the resource system
(Ostrom, 2009; Plummer & FitzGibbon,
2004)
 Nature of the resource units (Ostrom,
2009)
Larger ecological system
 Broader ecological context (Ostrom, 2009)
 Natural environment (Pahl-Wostl, 2002,
2009)
Problem
Problem/task issues (Pahl-Wostl, Sendzimir, et
al., 2007)
Problem-type (asymmetry of interests)
(Hearns, 2010)
Miscellaneous
Goal definition (Munaretto et al., 2014; Pahl Technologies (Pahl-Wostl, 2002, 2009)
Wostl et al., 2010; R. Scholz, 2011; Thissen &
 Incentives (Daniels et al., 2012)
Twaalfhoven, 2001)
 Relationships (Hearns, 2010)
This table outlines the different aspects of a basin’s context in three different thematic categories:
social, ecological, and the problem. The bulleted items are aspects of the context that the 22
frameworks discovered in my literature review propose as important for consideration in the
development and implementation of a decision making process.
27
2.2.2 Inclusivity
I define inclusivity as how interested and affected parties are involved in various
stages of the decision making process, both in terms of degree and quality. It includes,
but is not limited to direct public participation, consultation, designation of
representatives, and collaborative approaches. Inclusivity is important in large part
because it impacts buy-in and acceptance of the decision as it contributes or detracts from
deliberative legitimacy (Cosens, 2013). In an era with frequent legal battles in the US and
other countries, support for a decision may help avoid costly lawsuits. Inclusivity may
also influence the creativity of ideas as well as promote learning (Huitema et al., 2009;
Pahl-Wostl et al., 2013). With greater involvement, decision makers may be better able to
identify or challenges as well as avoid surprises (Iribarnegaray & Seghezzo, 2012; PahlWostl et al., 2013; Rogers & Hall, 2003).
In describing what constitutes successful inclusivity in water governance decision
making processes, the frameworks touch on: 1) who should be involved, 2) how they
should be involved, and 3) when they should be involved. The frameworks advocating
for inclusive processes all note the importance of pluralism and incorporating a diverse
set of perspectives in a decision making process. More specifically they advocate
including all parties interested in the subject at hand as well as those who will be
impacted by the decision (Huitema et al., 2009; Iribarnegaray & Seghezzo, 2012; PahlWostl et al., 2013; Plummer & Armitage, 2007; Rogers & Hall, 2003; Thissen &
Twaalfhoven, 2001; UN World Water Assessment Programme, 2003; US Agency for
International Development, 2010). These groups or individuals are referred to as
“interested and affected parties,” “relevant stakeholders,” or “actors.” In considering who
28
to include in a decision making process, Thissen and Twaalfhoven (2001) recommend the
process lead consider the potential participants reason for involvement, the extent of their
participation, extent of cooperation, and the representativeness and relevancy of their
selection. How the relevant stakeholders should be included in a decision making process
will vary depending on the situation (Iribarnegaray & Seghezzo, 2012). There is no
standard approach to participation, consultation, or representation and there is some
potential that groups should not be included in the same capacity, though making
distinctions of who is included to a lesser or greater degree is both controversial and
potentially counter-productive (Daniels et al., 2012; Iribarnegaray & Seghezzo, 2012;
Pahl-Wostl et al., 2013). Linking back to the context of the basin, different groups will
likely have different capacities for engagement in a process (Cheng & Sturtevant, 2012;
Cosens et al., 2014; Rogers & Hall, 2003). Drawing from participation and collaboration
literature, the frameworks recommend developing strategies for meaningful engagement
of interested and affected parties by finding the appropriate degree of participation and
focusing on ensuring quality participation through communication, transparency, and the
ability to influence the decision (Carr et al., 2012; Shirk et al., 2012; Stewart & Sinclair,
2007). Whatever form inclusivity may take, the frameworks advocate for early
involvement (Pahl-Wostl, Craps, et al., 2007; Rogers & Hall, 2003).
2.2.3 Information
Information and knowledge includes the efforts to collect, vet, analyze, and
manipulate data, information, and knowledge to make or inform the decision, including
all stages of collection, modeling, experiments, and analysis. For some decision making
processes, this may include extensive modeling of a river-system, an assessment of the
29
stakeholders in the basin and their interests, and/or monitoring of a stream. In water
governance, information and knowledge not only deals with technical models and
scientific data, but also may include traditional ecological knowledge (TEK) and other
forms of knowledge, though this information may be harder to validate. Information may
be collected, processed, and analyzed via monitoring (Curtin, 2014; Munaretto et al.,
2014; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2010), experimentation (Curtin, 2014; Huitema et al., 2009), and
peer-review (Pereira & Quintana, 2009).
Characteristics of information/knowledge regarded as important include that it
should be comprehensive/complete, accurate, applicable, coherent, and accessible. In
terms of comprehensiveness, Huitema et al., (2009) recommend that information be
collected and modeled at the bio-regional scale. Pereira and Quintana (2009) contend that
knowledge used in decision making should be socially robust, that is it fits the purpose of
the decision and context of the issue as well as is relevant to the social actors involved.
The World Water Assessment Programme (2003) and Commission of the European
Communities (2001) note that in an effort for information to be comprehensive it should
be integrative and holistic. Requiring that information be accurate and applicable simply
means that the information must be correct and honest in terms of the level of uncertainty
as well as relevant to the decision at hand (Pereira & Quintana, 2009). Accessibility
refers to interested and affected parties having the ability to obtain information used in
the decision making process. Coherence (or intelligibility) refers to the ability of those
who obtain the information to be able to understand it (Commission of the European
Communities, 2001; Pereira & Quintana, 2009). These characteristics are important in
information sharing, recommended for by Hearns (2010) explicitly and implicitly by
30
others promoting communication (Pahl-Wostl, 2002, 2009; Rogers & Hall, 2003; UN
World Water Assessment Programme, 2003). Social learning and frameworks
incorporating it advocate for process participants to gain knowledge and understanding
through sharing values, developing strategies together, and engaging in other collective
learning exercises, such as collaborative modelling (Cowie & Borrett, 2005; Mendosa &
Cardwell, 2011; Pahl-Wostl, 2002; Plummer & FitzGibbon, 2007).
2.2.4 Accountability
When discussing accountability, framework authors often speak of transparency,
equity/fairness, legitimacy, rule of law, leadership, responsiveness, as well as outline the
scope and degree of the decision space. Accountability is important in a decision making
process because it impacts the legitimacy and acceptance of a decision and therefore may
impact the potential for successful implementation. Accountability is also important
because it is often the driving force behind the structure of a process and the interactions
resulting from that structure. Thus, it can be defined as the organization and atmosphere
of the process designed to produce a legitimate decision.
Accountability as it relates to the structure of a process can be characterized via
three subcategories: 1) what is the scope of the decision making process, 2) who will
make the decision, and 3) how the decision will be made (Figure 5). It also may include
if/how the decision can be challenged or reviewed, an integral step in adaptive
management approaches (Gunderson & Light, 2006; Olsson et al., 2004; Pahl-Wostl,
Sendzimir, et al., 2007; Plummer, Armitage, & Loë, 2013; Plummer, 2009). Addressing
these subcategories helps set clear expectations for the various parties involved as well as
commitments to which the process lead can be held accountable. To answer the three
31
questions in Figure 5, the process lead should consider how to best be transparent, open,
communicative, and responsive, which are noted by many to promote legitimacy
(Biermann & Gupta, 2011a, 2011b; Cosens, 2013; Pahl-Wostl et al., 2013; Pereira &
Quintana, 2009; Plummer & FitzGibbon, 2007; Rogers & Hall, 2003; Thissen &
Twaalfhoven, 2001; UN World Water Assessment Programme, 2003). Legitimacy may
be results-based, order-based, deliberative, systemic, and/or procedural (Cosens, 2013). A
number of frameworks highlight legal obligations or the ‘rule of law,’ that is following
the appropriate laws and regulations (Ostrom, 2009; Schulz, 2007). However,
accountability is not met simply by doing the legal minimum. D'Estree and Colby (2004)
and Adger et al., (2003) note the importance of a process being procedurally fair and just,
as well as equitable.
What is the scope of the
decision making
process?
• Decision space (i.e.,
clearly defined scope of
effort)
• Decision authority
Who makes the
decision?
• Roles and
responsibilities (e.g.,
leadership)
• Degree to which
authority will be shared
(e.g., responsiveness)
How will the decision be
made?
• Clearly stated objectives
for the decision making
process
• Evaluation criteria for
decision options
Transparency, Openness, & Communication
Rule of law , Equity, & Procedurally fair and just
Figure 5. Central issues related to accountability in decision making processes
While accountability emphasizes the importance of early planning and
consideration in the development of the process, it also sits in tension with the fact that
one cannot predict everything that might happen. A challenge of addressing
accountability in a decision making process is figuring out how to incorporate flexibility
32
into the process (Munaretto et al., 2014; Thissen & Twaalfhoven, 2001). New
information may come available or the scope may change in the middle of decision
making process, requiring the leaders and participants of the decision making process to
adapt. As such, institutional capacity, or the ability of the decision making body and
basin to adapt to change is an important aspect of accountability.
2.2.5 Connecting the Process Categories
Table 8 provides a summary of the four process categories presented by this
framework. These four categories, while distinct, are inter-dependent. Figure 6 illustrates
how each of the categories links to others. The links displayed are not the complete set of
interactions between the categories but offer examples of how success or failure in one
area may contribute to the success or challenges in another. For example, if a process is
not as inclusive as it needs to be, parties excluded from the process may view the
decision as illegitimate because those making the decision were not accountable to all
interested and effected parties. Information and inclusivity are linked in who has access
to information and by how information can shape participant views and hopefully bring
groups towards a shared decision. The existing conditions or context of the basin dictate
what the decision makers have to work with in terms of information, decision space, and
potential interested and effected parties. The accountability, information, and inclusivity
of a process then in turn update or create new conditions to consider in future decisions.
33
Table 8. Summary of Water Governance Process Assessment categtories
Category and Definition
Importance
Example Subcomponents
 Culture, worldviews & values
Context - The various conditions of the
Highlights
 Incentives
basin and socio-ecological system under
barriers to
which the decision is being made. Three
 Resource system & units
overcome and
subcategories of the context are: social
opportunities to  Relationships
system, ecological system, and the
 Social, economic, & political
capitalize on.
problem.
setting
Inclusivity - The degree and quality of
inclusion of interested and effected parties
Influences the
 Participation
at various stages of the process, which
content and
 Power & agency
may take many forms (e.g., direct
acceptance of
 Representation
participation or representation) to result in
the decision.
meaningful engagement.
Information - The data, information and
knowledge used to make the decision,
including all stages of collection, modeling,
experiments, and analysis.
Often serves as
the foundation
or justification
for a decision.




Comprehensiveness
Integrative
Peer review
Socially robust
Accountability - The organization and
 Transparency
atmosphere of the process designed to
Influences
 Rule of law
legitimacy/
produce a legitimate decision based on 1)
 Leadership
acceptance of
what is the scope of the decision making
 Equity
the decision.
process, 2) who will make the decision,
 Responsiveness
and 3) how the decision will be made.
Table 8 is my summary of the Water GPA process categories, their importance in a decision
making process and example components of those categories from my source frameworks.
Contributes to audience(s) understanding of issue
Influences degree of information sharing
Information/
Knowledge
Promotes transparency
through sharing &
co-production
Impacts if data
are viewed as
accurate &
appropriate
Influences what
info is available
or needed
Explains & clarifies
Inclusivity
Impacts quality of
involvement &
degree of influence
Accountability
Influences
future
expectations
Shapes
decision
space
Context
Influences
whether decision
is accepted
Informs who
to include
Impacts future relationships
Figure 6. Example inter-dependencies between framework categories
A few characteristics noted in the concept map are cross-cutting issues through
two or more of the synthesis framework categories, such as: capacity, efficacy, openness,
34
and communication. These characteristics may have a stronger connection with one of
the categories, but are still present in the others. For example, openness might be closely
tied to accountability in how it contributes to transparency, but it is also seen in
information through information sharing and inclusivity in various parties’ access to
information and ability to influence the decision. Likewise good communication
demonstrates accountability via transparency and managing expectations, involves
producing and sharing accurate and appropriate information, and promotes quality
inclusivity.
Capacity, in its different forms, is another cross-cutting issue that is important to
the process as well as byproduct outcomes such as community capacity. Adaptive
capacity includes the authority and resources to respond to change (Cosens et al., 2014;
Pahl-Wostl, 2009). Participatory capacity is the ability of a person or group to participate
in a decision making process (Cosens et al., 2014; Huitema et al., 2009). It includes the
right to participate as well as the resources to do so. The issue of capacity emerges in all
four of the Water GPA process characteristics.
The capacity of the basin, as well as groups and individuals within it, to adapt to
change is a component of the basin context. Likewise, resource availability of different
groups is an aspect of capacity within the social context of the basin. That capacity
influences the ability of groups to participate and be included in the decision making
process. In terms of accountability, capacity is linked to the right of a person or
organization to participate in a process. Inclusivity is tied to capacity in whether not
groups have the resources to participate. The technical capacity and level of scientific
expertise of a person or group impacts their ability to access and understand technical
35
information. As capacity is such a cross-cutting issue, my synthesis framework does not
include capacity as a separate category. Rather different aspects of capacity are included
in the four other process categories as well as the byproducts. Operationalizing the Water
Governance Process Assessment
2.2.6 Assessing the Process Categories
With these four categories set as the scaffolding of the synthesis framework,
which I call the Water Governance Process Assessment (Water GPA), I returned to the
literature to see how the original frameworks evaluated the characteristics and
components within each category, including what indicators were used and how to assess
the indicator(s). This step of operationalizing each of the four categories is crucial to
avoiding the common pitfall of presenting a general concept for decision making
processes to follow, but not providing water managers a means by which to evaluate
whether or not they are adequately incorporating or addressing the concept.
One way to evaluate the categories of accountability, information, and
inclusivity is via a survey and/or semis-structured interview with a wide variety of
process participants, the process lead(s), and those not included in the process. The exact
method depends on the resources and time available for assessment. One can ask
participants to evaluate whether or not they agree that the process successfully
incorporated or addressed several indicators for each of the three categories. To minimize
the effects of bias on the evaluation, the application of the Water-GPA framework should
include multiple sources of information, including views from various parties engaged in
the process, process documents, and/or observations by an independent party. Appendix
36
A provides an example survey of how these three process categories were evaluated in
the two case studies presented below.
As with the other categories, data on how well the process lead considered the
context of the basin, can be collected from the process documentation as well as semistructured interviews. However, as context varies so widely from basin to basin, a survey
is less helpful. While data collection may be done via the same methods as data collection
for the other process categories, context must be evaluated differently. Often in case
studies or assessments of water governance, context is merely considered through a
description of the setting. Some resources, such as the workbooks produced by the
Resilience Alliance (2010), offer helpful approaches for thoroughly describing the
context. While important, a description, no matter how thorough, offers little inherent
guidance on what a lead organization (or the process lead) should do to develop a sound
decision making process for that basin, on that issue, at that point in time. To further our
understanding of context and its place in water governance, particularly decision making
processes, I propose a simple way for how one can consider context and utilize it in a
way to improve a decision making process.
After collecting and cataloging the various aspects of the context of a basin, work
through the list to identify: 1) the potential barriers to the process or decision, and 2) the
potential opportunities or leverage points to capitalize on to reach an accepted decision
for each of the three other categories. For example, identify what about the existing
relationships, physical geography of the basin, resource system, economics, and other
aspects of the basin context may impede inclusivity in the process or can be used by the
process lead (or facilitator) to promote inclusivity. The result may look something like
37
Table 9. Facilitators and mediators frequently do some variation of this exercise in their
stakeholder assessments and preparation for negotiations and mediations (Moore, Harty,
& Woodrow, 2001).
Table 9. Example assessment of context
Potential Barrier
 Large geographic extent to cover
Inclusivity
 Large number of relevant
stakeholders
Potential Leverage Point
 Existing coalitions
 Lessons learned from previous
consultations or collaborations
 Information collected and studies
conducted by various parties
 Existing models
 Trusted person/organization in
 Limited authority of lead
basin that can serve as ‘neutral’
organization and its ability to
Accountability
facilitator
share that authority
 Collective authority of parties
 Lack of trust in lead organization
involved
Table 9 provides an example of how one can assess context and evaluate how it was considered
in a decision making process. For example, one can identify potential barriers in accountability in
order to be sure to address them in the development of a process. When evaluating a process to
improve it the evaluator can check to make sure that the process lead did what it could to address
potential accountability barriers or leverage points.
Information
 Lack of data
 Concerns about data validity
Whoever is leading the decision making process can address these barriers or
utilize the leverage points at different stages of the process. For example, in the early
stages of process development for a large scale effort, the organizer can take the time to
explicitly consider how s/he can attempt to promote an inclusive process through
communication and representation strategies in a cost effective way. At that time, the
decision lead can also inquire what might be necessary to get various parties to trust data
produced during the decision making process and incorporate those recommendations
into the plans for collecting and analyzing data. In mid-program evaluation, the process
lead can see if the potential barriers have been adequately addressed or if issues such as
lack of trust, missing information, etc. still need to be tackled. In announcing the decision
38
and pursuing implementation, the process lead can utilize existing networks to spread the
word about a forthcoming decision.
2.2.7 Assessing Outcomes
To explore the link between process and outcome, we must assess both the
process and outcome(s). I define outcomes as direct products, or outputs, of the process,
namely: 1) the decision resulting from the process, and 2) byproducts of the process (i.e.,
those non-target outcomes produced as a result of the process, beyond what was
intended). This fits with the findings from Carr et al., (2012) in their review of public
participation evaluation, which distinguishes between the intermediate outcomes and
resource management outcomes. The Water-GPA framework does not yet attempt to
evaluate resource management outcomes (e.g., ecological or economic improvement)
because to do so would require the ability to distinguish the impacts of the process from
impacts related to implementation, something which currently remains out of reach.
Like the process categories, one can evaluate the decision via a survey and/or
conversation with a wide variety of review participants, the process lead(s), and those not
included in the process. To aid in assessing byproducts, I created a 'byproduct bank' by
identifying various outcomes, often intangible ones, that often result from,
increase/improve, or decrease/decline as a result of a decision making process. The list of
byproducts was created by identifying past results from decision making processes from
the water governance literature and public participation literature (Table 10). To
determine if the decision making process affected any of these byproducts, evaluators can
be asked to note whether each byproduct emerged new as a result of the process,
increased/improved, or decreased/declined, or experienced no change. To explore the link
39
between the process and byproducts, they can be asked to explain what about the process
contributed to or hindered the byproducts. The byproduct bank (i.e., the byproducts listed
and evaluated) is something that water managers can adapt and adjust according to their
own evaluation needs.
No change
or don’t
know
Decreased
Increased
Byproduct
Emerged
(new)
Table 10. Byproduct bank
Ability to resolve future disputes
Changes in water management
Coalitions
Communication
Community capacity for environmental/policy decision making
Co-produced science
Economic costs
Economic opportunities
Your own education/awareness
Your organization’s education/awareness about the issues at hand
Public education/awareness
Human capital
Innovation (innovative ideas or solutions)
Institutional capacity
Mutual/shared understanding
Programs or initiatives (outside of the decision)
Quality of relationships
Level of conflict and hostility
Social capital
Shared knowledge and information
Technical models
Trust in the lead agency
Trust in others involved
Understanding of ecological/biophysical system
Understanding of the social system
Understanding of other’s views, positions, etc.
Other - please specify:
Other - please specify:
This table lists potential byproducts of a process. It is structured so that process participants can
identify how a process did or did not influence each byproduct. It is drawn from the 22
frameworks used in the creation of the Water GPA as well as Carr et al., 2012.
40
2.3 Limitations of the Synthesis Framework
The Water GPA has several limitations. One is that current application of the
framework uses participant perceptions to evaluate the quality of a process
category/characteristic. Including a variety of perceptions from various process
participants, as well as those leading the process, can help overcome potential biases. In
fact using participant perception in process evaluation may reveal strengths and
weaknesses of different parts of the decision making process. For example, stakeholders
and government officials often participate in different aspects of decision making
processes and, therefore, can speak to and help the process lead identify what may be
successful or problematic within those initiatives.
Another limitation is that some elements of the framework are out of the decision
maker or process lead’s control. A water manager may use the framework to evaluate a
process and discover that the barrier to good water governance is not something s/he can
manipulate to improve the process. Many of the aspects of the context component of the
framework are good examples of this. The geographic extent of a river basin is defined
by typography and hydrology. Laws, which may either impede or facilitate good
governance, are generally considered a given constraint within which a process must
work. It is not that these elements never change. Rather some may change over
timescales longer than the process or may be something that the process lead cannot
change on their own. Legislatures can change laws, agencies can release new regulations,
and courts issue new opinions that clarify previously undefined or unclear aspects of the
law. Likewise, power dynamics of different interested and affected parties can be both
entrenched but also shift over time. For example, court decisions over the past 40 years
41
have reaffirmed tribal rights and authorities and increased their power and influence in
water management. In these situations, the process lead can work within the latitude
available to them or try to compensate for an issue in another area.
2.4 Chapter Conclusion
In this chapter, I completed my first objective to develop an operationalized
framework for systematically evaluating water governance processes based on existing
frameworks for water governance, natural resource management, resilience, AM, and
AG. I did this through a review of the water and natural resource governance literature,
through which I identified 22 frameworks to draw from. Using concept mapping I
identified five themes, or process categories/characteristics, that the frameworks identify
as important to good water governance and high quality decision making processes. I
adopted four of those characteristics of the process into the Water Governance Process
Assessment (Water GPA). I operationalized measurement/assessment of those aspects of
the process as well as the process decision and byproducts so that water managers can
evaluate the quality of a process and decision as well as track the byproducts produced
during a process.
My next task is to use the framework to demonstrate how it can be applied and to
examine whether or not it is a practical tool for feasible water governance process
evaluation. In the next chapter, I explain my methodology for applying the framework. I
will also later use the framework in Chapter 7 to investigate the link between process and
outcomes in order to determine what about a process influences the decision and
byproduct outcomes.
42
3 Case Study Methodology
Equipped with my new synthesis framework, I set out to apply it in order to 1)
investigate its usefulness as an evaluation framework for decision making processes in
water governance, and 2) examine which characteristics of a process influence the
process outcomes. I decided to use two case studies to accomplish these tasks. In this
chapter, I provide a detailed look at the methods I employed for data collection and
analysis in the two case study applications of the Water Governance Process Assessment
(Water GPA). I start with a general description of case studies as a qualitative research
method and explanation of why I chose to use case studies. Next, I explain how I selected
my case studies. Third, I document how I collected data for the case studies. Finally, I
describe my approach for data analysis.
3.1 Research Design
In this section, I describe my research design for applying the Water GPA. I begin
with a discussion of case studies as one method of qualitative inquiry. Then I explain why
I selected a case study approach and how I designed and implemented my case studies.
The following sections dive into further details on my data collection and analysis.
3.1.1 Case Studies a Method of Qualitative Inquiry
Case studies are one form of qualitative inquiry employed in research (Creswell,
2013). Yin (2014) defines a case study as an “empirical inquiry that investigates a
contemporary phenomenon (the ‘case’) in depth and within its real-world context,
especially when the boundaries between phenomenon and context may not be clearly
evident” (16). Case studies typically rely on multiple sources of evidence in order to
triangulate findings (Yin, 2014).Case studies are well-suited for analyzing “how” and
43
“why” questions. While case studies address “how” and “why” questions their ability to
determine true causal relationships is limited as it is difficult to tease out what is a
universal concept and what is linked to the specifics of the case itself (Yin, 2014).
However, they can offer much to theory development (George & Bennett, 2005).
Yin (2014) identifies five key components of research design for case studies: 1)
the questions, 2) case study propositions, 3) the unit(s) of analysis, 4) the logic of linking
the data to propositions, and 5) the criteria for interpreting findings. There are three types
of case studies: descriptive (intended to describe a phenomenon in its context),
exploratory (intends to identify the questions or procedures for future studies), and
explanatory (intends to explain how or why something did or did not happen) (Yin,
2014). In the next subsection, I describe how I selected my case studies, what kind of
case studies they are, and how I addressed the five key components of case study research
design.
3.1.2 Review of Research Questions and Hypotheses
Before I describe my case study and methodology, I want to review my research
questions and hypotheses for the case studies. As presented in Chapter 1, my research
questions are as follows:
1.
2.
3.
4.
What are characteristics of a “good” water governance process?
How can those characteristics be used to evaluate water governance processes?
What are lessons learned for good water governance from the case studies?
What characteristics of a water governance process contribute to water
governance outcomes?
The first research question is addressed in the development of the Water GPA in Chapter
2 (not in the case studies). My case studies help answer the last three questions. I
hypothesize that the Water GPA and the characteristics it identifies as important to
44
decision making processes (i.e., accountability, information, inclusivity, and context)
will: 1) be a useful tool for process evaluation, 2) identify what helped promote or
hindered good water governance in my case studies, and 3) will influence the outcomes
of the two processes (Table 11).
Table 11. Case study research questions and hypotheses
Research Questions
Hypotheses
Research Question 2 - How can those
characteristics be used to evaluate water
governance processes?
Hypothesis 2 - The Water GPA is a useful tool
for feasible evaluation of a water governance
decision making process.
Research Question 3 - What were barriers
and building blocks for good water governance
in the Canadian and American reviews of the
CRT?
Hypothesis 3 - Different aspects of
accountability, information, inclusivity, and
context helped promote or hindered good water
governance in the two reviews.
Hypothesis 4 - The accountability, information,
inclusivity, and context of a decision making
process influence and therefore help explain
outcomes.
Table 11 lists out the research questions I hope to address in my case studies along with their
corresponding hypotheses.
Research Question 4 - What characteristics of
a water governance process contribute to
water governance outcomes?
3.1.3 Case Study Selection
To answer these research questions and examine the validity of these hypotheses,
I conducted two case studies. I selected a case study method because the variables in my
research outnumber the number of cases (i.e., there is a problem with degrees of
freedom). While this is a critique of the case study approach, academics accept the
method as a valid form of inquiry (Yin, 2014). I used the Water Governance Process
Assessment (presented above) to evaluate two recent reviews of the Columbia River
Treaty (CRT) by the United States and Canada. Ratified in 1964, CRT provisions
maximize flood control and hydropower benefits received on both sides of the USCanada border from the Columbia River. While the Treaty continues indefinitely, some
of its flood control provisions will expire in 2024 and others (i.e., Called Upon flood
control where the US pays Canada for flood control on an as-needed basis) will come
45
into effect. September 2024 was also the earliest date the CRT can be terminated
unilaterally, given 10 years notice. Since September 16, 2024 either nation can give 10
years notice to unilaterally terminate the Treaty. This provides both nations with the
opportunity to consider pursuing a change in water governance of the Columbia River.
Both took the opportunity to engage in a process to decide whether or not to update the
CRT’s water governance approach. The Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and
Bonneville Power Authority (BPA) led the US CRT 2014/2024 Review to develop a
recommendation to the Department of State. In British Columbia (BC), Canada, the
Ministry of Energy and Mines conducted its own investigation of the CRT to provide its
decision for potential action by Canada.
I selected these two decision making processes as my case studies for several
reasons. I believe these two case studies are compelling applications of the framework
because they demonstrate two different water governance processes striving to make the
same decision in the same basin (i.e., recommend continuing with the Treaty as is,
terminating the Treaty, or pursuing modifications to the Treaty). The unique contexts for
the American and Canadian reviews also aid in identifying potential barriers or building
blocks to good water governance. The fact that the two reviews were completed recently
means the process is relatively fresh in the minds of the involved parties and evaluation is
timely. In some ways my case study selection is also one of convenience. In addition to
the timing matching up, I also observed the two decision making processes since the fall
of 2010 by attending meetings on conferences associated with the two reviews. This
meant I had access to the two reviews and their participants, which helped me avoid some
of the barriers to entry researchers often encounter.
46
3.1.4 Case Study Research Design
As described above, my units of analysis are the two CRT reviews. The Treaty
reviews are ongoing and therefore I bounded my case studies to look at the Phase 2
decision making process (Figure 7). This phase started after the completion of the Phase
1 joint technical studies conducted by the US and Canadian Entity, in 2010 when the two
countries decided to embark on separate reviews of the Treaty. Phase 2 ends with the
delivery of each reviews decision/recommendation to their respective national
government. Therefore, the time period of the US case study is the summer of 2010
through December 2013 and the BC case study begins in the fall of 2011 and ends in
March 2014 (Table 12).
PHASE 1:
Joint Technical Studies
Joint effort
BC & Canada
PNW & US
PHASE 2:
Independent Basin
Treaty Reviews
PHASE 3:
National Reviews
& Decision
BC CRT Review
(BC Provincial
Decision)
Dept. of Foreign
Affairs, Trade &
Development
US CRT
2014/2024 Review
(US Regional
Recommendation)
Dept. of State
(Circular 175
Process)
US & Canadian
Entity Joint
Technical Studies
US Entity
Supplemental
Report
Case Study
Bounds
Figure 7. Diagram of case study boundaries
47
Table 12. Summary of case study boundaries
Case Study Name
Lead Agency
Start Date
British Columbia (BC)
Columbia River
Treaty Review
BC Ministry of Energy and
Mines
Fall 2011
United States
21014/2024 Columbia
River Treaty Review
US Entity (US Army Corps
of Engineers and
Bonneville Power
Administration
Summer
2010
End Date
March 2014
(delivery of the BC
Provincial Decision to
Canada)
December 2013
(delivery of the US Regional
Recommendation to the
Department of State
Table 12 summarizes my case study boundaries in terms of what decision making process, who
led the process, and the timing of that process.
Table 13 explains Yin’s (2014) five components of case study research and then
identifies those components in the context of my case studies. While my case studies
include extensive descriptions, they are explanatory case studies. The purpose of the case
studies is to explain how the decision making process influenced or impacted the
outcomes. Presented in a slightly different way, my case studies seek to explain why the
US and Canada achieved certain outcomes in their reviews of the Columbia River Treaty
with the proposition being that aspects of the decision making process had some
influence. My hypothesis for the second question is that the four categories of the Water
GPA (accountability, information, inclusivity, and context) identify the characteristics
that influence the content and degree of support for the BC Provincial Decision and US
Regional Recommendation as well as influencing a number of byproducts. To test this
hypothesis and contribute to theory development, I use pattern matching to investigate
whether my empirical findings support the existing theory. As appropriate, I make
analytical generalizations about how my case studies relate to resilience theory and
adaptive water governance.
48
Table 13. Summary of case study research design
Component & Definition
My Application
My case studies seek to answer the following
questions: 2) How can those characteristics in the
Case study questions - The research
Water GPA be used to evaluate water governance
questions which the case study seeks to
processes? 3) What are lessons learned for good
address
water governance from the case studies? And 4)
What characteristics of a water governance process
contribute to water governance outcomes?
I hypothesize that the four categories of the Water
Case study propositions - The hypotheses GPA (accountability, information, inclusivity, and
and assumptions proposed/made by the
context) influenced the content and degree of
researcher that further direct what data
support for the BC Provincial Decision and US
will be collected
Regional Recommendation as well as influencing a
number of byproducts.
Unit(s) of analysis - The “case” to be
My units of analysis are the Phase 2 reviews of the
examined after it is defined and bounded
Columbia River Treaty by the United States and
by the researcher
British Columbia.
Logic linking data to propositions I employ a pattern matching technique in each case
Analytic approach (e.g., pattern matching,
study to see if the empirical results match my
explanation building, logic models, crosshypothesis.
case synthesis) to be taken
Criteria for interpreting findings - How the
I address rival explanations through inductive coding
researcher plans to interpret results and
of emergent themes of other factors that may have
develop conclusions, including how to
influenced the review outcomes.
address rival explanations.
Table 13 summarizes the different components of case study research design and how I defined
or addressed each component in my two case studies.
3.2 Data Collection
3.2.1 Semi-structured interviews and surveys
I collected data for the case studies using a mixed methods approach of semistructured interviews, a survey, as well as some document analysis. Study participants are
individuals who participated in either the US or Canadian review of the Columbia River
Treaty representing the federal agencies, First Nations/Tribes, states/province, local
governments, and stakeholders listed in Table 14. My overall sampling strategy for
selecting potential survey and interview participants was a purposive stratified-quota
sampling approach. I selected that approach in order to ensure that a variety of
perspectives are represented in the data collected. I set out to interview around 40 total
individuals--around 20 from each side of the US-Canadian border. However, this was a
49
tentative target. My goal for the interviews was to reach saturation, where no new
information or themes emerge with additional interviews or other data collected (Guest,
Bunce, & Johnson, 2006). Arksey and Knight (1999) and Guest et al. (2006) note that
researchers typically reach saturation between six to twelve interviews.
Table 14. Groups included in stratified sampling approach
US CRT 2014/2024 Review
BC CRT Review
Program
 US Army Corps of Engineers
 BC Ministry of Energy and
Leads
Mines
 Bonneville Power Administration
 US Environmental Protection Agency
 US Forest Service
 US Fish and Wildlife Service
 Natural Resources Canada
 US Geological Survey
 Environment Canada
Federal
 US Bureau of Indian Affairs
 Fisheries and Oceans
Government
 US National Marine Fisheries Service
Canada
 US National Park Service
 US Bureau of Reclamation
 US Department of the Interior
 Cowlitz Tribe
 Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish
 Ktunaxa Nation
Commission
Native
 Okanagan Nation
American
 Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes
 Secwepemc Nation
Tribes
 Upper Columbia United Tribes
(Neskonlith Band)
 Upper Snake River Tribes
 Sinixt
 Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde
 Idaho
 BC Hydro
State,
 Montana
 Ministry of Forests, Lands and
Provincial,
Natural Resource Operations

Oregon
& Local

Ministry of Environment

Washington
Government
 Local Government Committee
 County Commissioners in basin
 Power interests
 Irrigation interests
 BC CRT Review Sounding
Stakeholders  Navigation interests
Board Members
 Other citizens
 Environmental interests
 Recreation interests
This table outlines the various groups of process participants I attempted to interview and survey
for my case studies. I interviewed a minimum of two individuals from each category for each
review. To ensure confidentiality all organizations/affiliations I contacted are listed, instead of only
those interviewed.
I identified potential interviewees by reviewing the lists of members or
participants for various Treaty review committees and teams as well as public comments
made on the draft BC Provincial Decision as well as the working draft and draft versions
of the US Regional Recommendation. All of these sources are publically available. I
50
recruited participants in the study via phone, email, and personal requests at conferences
in the basin. Roughly half of those contacted agreed to participate in the study. Others did
not respond to my inquiries or were not able to participate due to their busy schedules. At
the conclusion of data collection, I interviewed 22 individuals involved in the US CRT
2014/2024 Review and 16 individuals involved in the BC CRT Review (Table 15 and
Table 16). Of those individuals 14 from the BC CRT Review and 20 from the US
2014/2024 Review filled out surveys. The four individuals who did not complete the
survey either declined due to the time commitment or have not returned the survey as of
the date of completion of this study. A number of other individuals--six in the United
States and three in British Columbia--completed the survey but did not participate in an
interview. I provide a copy of the survey and the interview question guide in Appendix B.
Table 15. BC Columbia River Treaty Review case study participants
Number
Category
Affiliations
Completed
Survey
 Natural Resources Canada
Federal
2
 Environment Canada
Government
 Fisheries and Oceans Canada
First Nations
Provincial
Government





Ktunaxa Nation
Okanagan Nation
Secwepemc Nation (Neskonlith Band)
Sinixt
BC Ministry of Energy and Mines (Lead
Agency)
 BC Hydro
 Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural
Resource Operations
 Ministry of Environment
Number
Interviewed
2
0
2
5
5
Local
Government
 Members of Local Government Committee
3
2
Stakeholders
 BC CRT Review Sounding Board Members
 Other citizens
8
5
Total
18
16
Table 15 lists out the organizations and agencies who participated in the BC CRT Review and
how many in each category I interviewed and surveyed for my analysis. Sources for identifying
potential participants include Sounding Board and Committee rosters as well as other public
documents from the BC CRT Review.
51
Table 16. US 2014/2024 CRT Review case study participants
Category
Federal
Government
Native American
Tribes
State & Local
Government
Stakeholders
Affiliations
 Bonneville Power Administration (Lead
Agency)
 US Army Corps of Engineers (Lead
Agency)
 US Environmental Protection Agency
 US Forest Service
 US Fish and Wildlife Service
 US Geological Survey
 US Bureau of Indian Affairs
 US National Marine Fisheries Service
 US National Park Service
 US Bureau of Reclamation
 US Department of the Interior
 US Department of State
 Cowlitz Tribe
 Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish
Commission
 Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes
 Upper Columbia United Tribes
 Upper Snake River Tribes
 Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde
 Idaho
 Montana
 Oregon
 Washington
 County Commissioners
 State Representatives
 Power interests
 Irrigation interests
 Navigation interests
 Environmental interests
Number
Completed
Survey
Number
Interviewed
8
6
4
3
3
3
13
10
Total
28
22
Table 16 lists out the organizations and agencies who participated in the US CRT 2014/2024
Review and how many in each category I interviewed and surveyed for my analysis. Sources for
identifying potential participants include SRT and STT Rosters, public comments on the Working
Draft and Draft versions of the Regional Recommendations, public comments received at other
points during the US CRT Review.
The length of the interviews ranged from twenty minutes to two hours depending
on how much time the participant was able to contribute and how much they wanted to
share. I asked each interviewee if it was acceptable for me to record our conversation in
order to transcribe and analyze the text. All but one person allowed me to record and
52
transcribe our conversation. For that individual I took copious notes during our
conversation to collect his/her insights. I transcribed the audio recordings and that one set
of interview notes into text files, specifically Microsoft Word documents. A few
interviewees requested that I share the transcription for their review before data analysis.
I sent those individuals copies of their interview transcript so they could redact, expand
upon, or clarify any statements they made. One interviewee made minor revisions to the
transcript to improve clarity of language. I also transcribed the survey responses into an
Excel spreadsheet. As this research included human subjects, I submitted the research to
the Oregon State University Institutional Review Board (IRB) for ethics review and
approval prior to data collection. I include a copy of the IRB Approval Form in Appendix
C. To help ensure confidentiality I did not collect names or other personal identifiers in
this study. Transcriptions (and all other documentation) used identification code numbers
instead of names. After transcription, I shredded and discarded the paper surveys. Only I
had access to the digital audio recordings of the interviews and the survey results. The
recordings, transcriptions of the recordings, and transcribed survey results are stored
digitally in a locked room on a password-protected computer. As per IRB recommended
guidelines, the digital audio recordings and transcriptions will be erased after seven years.
I include select text quotes from participants in the presentation of research findings here
and in other publications. These quotes are not attributed to the interviewees by name but
rather by general interest or involvement in the two cases (e.g., hydropower interest,
technical committee member). The purpose for these quotes is to provide examples that
illustrate findings and concepts resulting from the study.
53
3.2.2 Documents
My document analysis took two forms. First, was a comparison of the different
iterations of the decision documents produced by the two Treaty reviews. I compared the
draft and final versions of the BC Provincial Decision as well as the working draft, draft,
and final versions of the US Regional Recommendation. In my analysis, I reviewed the
documents for 1) the inclusion of new language, and 2) changes in language that give
new meaning (i.e., assert or clarify a view or position as opposed to improve the grammar
of the document). This analysis simply documents the changes. I also used documents,
produced during the two reviews to verify interview and survey data. These documents
included public comments on the decision documents as well as reports and products
produced by the lead agencies and other organizations participating in or observing the
reviews. In the next section of this chapter I explain how I analyzed the data collected.
3.3 Data Analysis
In this section of Chapter 3, I describe my strategy for data analysis. I address it in
three parts. First, I explain how I analyzed the two decision making processes that serve
as my cases (i.e., the BC CRT Review and US CRT 2014/2024 Review). Second, I
describe my strategy for analyzing the outcomes of the two decision making processes.
Finally, I explain how I analyzed the link between a decision making process and its
outcomes. It is important to note that all three areas of analysis use data from the semistructured interviews, surveys, and documentation described in the chapter section on
data collection. How I analyzed each data source is included in each subsection.
54
3.3.1 Decision Making Process
I used data from the surveys and interview transcripts to analyze the two decision
making processes (i.e., the BC CRT Review and US 2014/2024 CRT Review) and
identify what participants felt worked well and what did not using the categories of the
Water Governance Process Assessment (Water GPA). The Water GPA includes four
primary codes or themes for evaluating decision making processes: context, inclusivity,
information, and accountability. As I discussed earlier, both the survey and interviews
recorded perceptions about different aspects of the process. For instance, in the survey,
participants rated the degree to which they agreed or disagreed that the process reflected
certain desirable traits or criteria. In the interviews, the participants provided examples or
reasons for those scores.
The survey responses included data for three categories of the Water GPA,
accountability, information, and inclusivity. For each criterion within a category, I
calculated the mean score as well as made counts for the distribution of responses. This
allowed me to see if the survey respondents were largely in agreement or disagreement in
their scores. If there was disagreement among the scores, I investigated what may
account for the differences in perception. For example, in the US 2014/2024 CRT
Review I parsed out the scores from stakeholders and sovereigns to see if that explained
the variation in views.
I manually coded the interview transcripts and open-ended survey responses using
NVivo qualitative software and the framework I created (Water GPA). Within each
primary code (e.g., context, accountability, inclusivity, and information) are several subcodes that evaluate a specific aspect of the theme. For example, within the primary code
55
of accountability, sub-codes include decision authority, criteria used for making the
decision, rule of law, procedural fairness. In addition to this deductive coding, I also
inductively coded the interviews based on the emergent themes I encountered in multiple
interviews (Strauss, 1987). A complete list and description/definition of the codes is
available in Appendix D. In addition to coding the text to identify the theme/subtheme, I
also coded each piece of coded text for whether or not the comment from the participant
was positive, negative, or neutral/mixed. This allowed me to explore trends in what
aspects of the two reviews were viewed favorably and which were not. From this
information, I identified lessons learned from the two reviews that the US and Canada
may want to consider as they proceed with the next steps of the Treaty reviews or in
future decision making processes within the basin.
3.3.2 Process Outcomes
As explained in Chapter 2, I consider process outcomes to consist of two
categories: decisions and byproducts. These are direct outputs resulting from a process or
what Carr et al. (2012) consider to be “intermediary outcomes.” Decisions are the
intended goal or result of a decision making process; whereas, byproducts are non-target
outcomes. That is, byproducts are ancillary results that a decision making process did not
set as a goal of the process, but still resulted from the process. Table 17 includes a
summary of how I collected and analyzed data on the two different types of outcomes.
56
Table 17. Summary of data analysis of process outcomes
Outcome
Survey
Interviews
Decision (i.e., BC
Provincial Decision
and US Regional
Recommendation)
 Calculated mean
scores
 Counted distribution
of responses
 Coded views as
positive,
negative,
neutral/mixed
Document Analysis
 Compared text of draft
versions to note content
and language changes
 Summarized themes
from public comments
on documents
 Tallied counts of
what respondents
 Coded
noted as emerged,
examples of
 None
increased,
different
decreased, or no
byproducts
change
Table 17 summarizes the different types of data analysis I used for my surveys, interviews, and
document analysis.
Byproducts (e.g.,
trust, understanding
of ecological system,
technical models,
etc.)
Study participants provided feedback on the review decisions via the survey and
interview. In the survey, participants rated the degree to which they agreed or disagreed
with statements about the BC Provincial Decision or US Regional Recommendation.
These responses captured survey respondents perceptions about the decision’s legitimacy,
potential for it to be accepted by the federal government to which it was presented, and if
the document reflected the views of the region and survey respondent. For each of these
criteria, I calculated the mean score of the participants as well as made counts for the
distribution of responses. If there was disagreement among the scores, I investigated what
may account for the differences in perception. In the interview transcripts, I manually
coded statements about the decisions as positive, negative, or neutral/mixed in order to
investigate what participants thought of the decision documents and what influenced
those views.
Data on the byproducts primarily came from the survey responses. In their
surveys, participants noted which byproducts from the list provided emerged, increased,
decreased, or did not change as a result of the Treaty review process they were
evaluating. I tallied counts of the responses to document how many participants observed
57
changes in the byproducts. In the survey, participants also identified up to three
byproducts that were most important to them and up to three byproducts that they wished
had resulted from the Treaty review. In those responses, some participants cited
byproducts from the list provided. Others did not. For the byproducts noted that did not
explicitly appear in the list I provided, I categorized them according to the list or included
them in the list of “other.” I also used the list of byproducts to manually code the
interview transcripts using NVivo qualitative software. This served to supplement the
survey data by capturing specific examples of the various byproducts. For example, new
programs or initiatives is one potential byproduct of a decision making process. Several
interviewees mentioned the Columbia Basin Regional Advisory Committee as a new
program resulting from the BC CRT Review, which brings together government
agencies, First Nations, and BC citizens to address both domestic and Treaty-related
issues in the BC portion of the basin.
3.3.3 The Link between Process and Outcomes
My investigation of whether there is a link between decision making process and
outcomes included a multi-prong approach. I employed the semi-structured interviews
described above to examine the link between the process and outcomes, both the
decisions and byproducts of the two reviews. During the interviews for the two case
studies, the United States 2014/2024 Columbia River Treaty Review and the British
Columbia CRT Review, I asked participants if the review process in terms of
accountability, information, inclusivity, and context shaped or influenced the outcomes of
the decision making process. I also inquired if other aspects of the review process or
outside factors influenced the decision (in my case studies that would be either the US
58
Regional Recommendation or BC Provincial Decision) or review byproducts. For
investigating the link between the two processes and their decisions (the US Regional
Recommendation and BC Provincial Review) I supplemented my methodology with
document analysis.
Using QSR NVivo software I manually coded the interviews deductively using
the Water GPA as described above in the sub-section titled “Decision Making
Processes.” I identified all statements where a participant talks about some aspect of the
process influencing or not influencing the decision or byproducts. I coded those
statements for which aspect of the process the participant was referring to (i.e.,
accountability, inclusivity, context, and information as well as their secondary codes (see
Chapter x and Appendix for list). Statements that did not fit under any of these four
primary codes were coded as “Other.” I then inductively coded the statements in the
“Other” code to identify subthemes they may explain what influenced the two review
decisions and their byproducts. This inductive coding process is important for identifying
potential rival explanations.
I then went through all those coded statements a second time to identify the kind
of influence or lack of influence the participant discussed. Table 18 lists these codes for
statements related to the decision. Table 19 lists the codes for statements about
byproducts. Using the matrix coding query in NVivo I was then able to identify which
aspects of decision making process did or did not influence the outcomes (Table 20).
59
Table 18. Additional codes for analysis of link between a process and its decision
Code
Explanation
Some aspect of the process influenced the structure or content of the
Influenced content
decision
Increased support
Some aspect of the process increased participant support for the decision
Decreased support
Some aspect of the process decreased participant support for the decision
No influence
The process did not influence the decision in terms of content or support
Other
The process had some other impact on the decision
Table 18 displays the codes I used to document potential links between the characteristics of a
process and the decision.
Table 19. Additional codes for analysis of link between a process and its byproducts
Code
Explanation
Some aspect of the process promoted the emergence or increase
Increased byproduct
of a byproduct
Some aspect of the process impeded the emergence or increase
Worked against byproduct
of a byproduct
No influence
The aspect of the process had no impact on the byproduct
Recommendations or statements about how if the process was run
Would have helped
or structured differently, it would have contributed to a byproduct
Table 19 displays the codes I used to document potential links between the characteristics of a
process and the process byproducts.
Table 20. Example NVivo matrix coding query results: how process influenced the US
Regional Recommendation
Number of Coded References
Contributed to US Regional
Recommendation
Other
No
Decreased
influence influence
support
Increased
Influenced
support
content
Accountability
10
16
5
3
3
Context
0
6
2
1
2
Inclusivity
Information
15
5
38
5
2
2
7
13
10
1
Other
0
1
0
1
1
Table 20Table 99 displays the number of coded references noting that the four Water GPA
process characteristics and an ‘other’ category (for potential rival explanations) had one of four
types of influence (increased support, influenced content, decreased support, or other influence)
or had no influence on the US Regional Recommendation.
I conducted two different forms of document analysis to help examine what
influenced the content and support for the US Regional Recommendation and BC
Provincial Decision. To examine the evolution of the two decision documents (i.e., the
BC Provincial Decision and US Regional Recommendation), I compared the language
60
and content of each version of the two documents. To compare the versions I copied the
text into a Microsoft Word document and used the “Compare Documents” function in
Microsoft Word to identified changes. I reviewed the resulting comparison documents
for: 1) the inclusion of new language, and 2) changes in language that give new meaning
(i.e., assert or clarify a view or position as opposed to improve the grammar of the
document). That analysis catalogues the changes between versions of the two decision
documents. The second document analysis I completed was to summarize the comments
made by various parties on draft versions of the documents.
3.3.4 Statement of Potential Research Bias
Like other qualitative methods, some academics criticize case studies for the lack
of rigor in some previous work and the challenges of addressing research bias (Flyvbjerg,
2006). In an effort to ensure full transparency in this research, I wanted to briefly share
the history of my involvement with the discussions around and reviews of the Columbia
River Treaty. I first became involved in the Columbia River Treaty discussions in the fall
of 2010, when I attended the second symposium hosted by the Universities Consortium
on Columbia Basin Governance. These symposia are informal, transboundary events with
the aim of fostering transboundary dialogue between Canadians, Americans, Tribes, and
First Nations. Since then, I attended all subsequent symposia in 2011 and 2012 as well as
the Columbia River Basin 2014 Transboundary Conference in the fall of 2014. At each
event I served as a rapporteur taking notes for various Consortium products. I also coproduced a short film, Voices of the Basin, in order to share various perspectives of basin
residents on the Columbia River Treaty reviews (DuMond, Ogren, Petersen-Perlman, &
Watson, 2012). From July 2013 through January 2014, I joined the US CRT 2014/2024
61
as a Visiting Scholar with the Army Corps of Engineers Portland District. In this position,
I provided program support, including attending various review meetings, developing
presentations, summarizing public comments, investigating Canadian views of the
Columbia River Treaty and its reviews, and leading the Corps internal After Action
Review. Throughout this five year timeframe, I have done my best to participate in the as
a neutral researcher working to identify lessons learned through the two review processes
in order to share my findings so they might improve future decision making processes.
Funding for this research comes from several sources. The primary funding
source is the Hydro Research Foundation (HRF) Research Awards Program2. The
Sasakawa Young Leaders Fellowship Fund (Sylff) Graduate Fellowship for International
Research3 also contributed significant funding for my research. Other funding sources
include the American Association of Geographers Water Research Specialty Group and
Geography Program within the College of Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences at
Oregon State University (Arthur Parenzin Fellowship).
These experiences and funding sources all positively impacted my study by
giving me greater access to the two CRT reviews, allowing for a more thorough
understanding of the cases and more nuanced analysis. However, they may also bias my
research. I perceive my potential biases to include: 1) sympathy for the US Entity as I
2
Description from HRF website: “The Hydro Research Foundation, Inc. (Foundation) is leading the Hydro
Research Awards Program that is designed to stimulate new student research and academic interest in
research and careers in conventional or pumped storage hydropower. The awards are made possible by a
grant from the Energy Efficiency and Renewable Energy Program of the U.S. Department of Energy
(DOE). The awards are designed to allow outstanding early-career researchers to facilitate research related
to hydropower.” For more information visit: http://www.hydrofoundation.org/research-awardsprogram.html
3
Program description from website: “The goal of the Sylff Program is to nurture future leaders who will
transcend geopolitical, religious, ethnic, and cultural boundaries in the world community for the peace and
the well-being of humankind.” For more information visit: http://gradschool.uoregon.edu/SYLFF
62
witnessed its efforts firsthand, and 2) increased focus on hydropower interests as I need
to report their observations as part of my deliverables to the HRF as a condition of my
funding. A third bias is that I am an American living in the US portion of the basin with
greater access to the US CRT 2014/2024 Review. Therefore that case study is more
thorough than the BC CRT Review case study. A fourth bias is that I know many of the
study participants personally, on both sides of the border and in a variety of roles in the
two reviews. As a conflict management professional, I prefer cooperation to conflict and
want this basin to find a way for all parties to come out ahead. Therefore, I may have a
tendency to avoid presenting information I feel may make the two countries more
positional or may tilt negotiations in favor of one country or the other. A final researcher
bias of mine is that I created the Water GPA and therefore might favor the process
characteristics it says are important and miss other characteristics or explanations for
process outcomes.
Aware of my potential biases, I actively scrutinized my work throughout the
research process to work to ensure that I was as an objective as researcher as possible. I
adopted recommendations from Yin’s 2014 book, Case Study Research. My efforts to be
as neutral as possible include: 1) reflecting on whether I am too gentle with the process
leads, 2) checking my work to make sure my findings reflect all stakeholders and
sovereigns and that hydropower is not overly represented, 3) clearly identifying whose
views I am presenting so the reader can consider the source of information, 4) extra trips
to the BC portion of the basin and the creation of a database of Canadian perspectives to
ensure that my BC CRT Review case study is robust, 5) presenting my findings
regardless of how they may help or hurt either side (or parties within each country) in any
63
future negotiations, 6) actively searching for other explanations outside of the Water
GPA that might explain the link between process and outcome (Table 21). Having taken
those measures, I feel I did my best to report my observations, findings, and conclusions
in a fair way that is true to the people I interviewed and surveyed as well as the
documents I analyzed.
Table 21. Potential researcher biases and how I worked to mitigate them
Potential Bias
What I did to combat it
 Presented both negative and positive views from
Being too gentle with the US Entity
interviewee and survey respondents
whom I previously consulted for in the

Reflected on whether I am too gentle with the
US CRT 2014/2024 Review
process leads
 Checked my work to make sure my findings reflect
all stakeholders and sovereigns and that
Over-representation of hydropower
hydropower is not overly represented
interests
 Clearly identified whose views I am presenting so
the reader can consider the source of information
My BC case study may not be as
 Made extra trips to the BC portion of the basin
thorough as my US case study because
 Created a database of Canadian perspectives to
I am an American who worked on the
ensure that my BC CRT Review case study is
US CRT 2014/2024 Review
robust
Not presenting findings that may
 Presented my findings regardless of how they may
decrease potential cooperation between
help or hurt either side (or parties within each
countries
country) in any future negotiations
I created the Water GPA and may favor
 Actively searched for other explanations outside of
the characteristics it proposes as
the Water GPA that might explain the link between
influencing water governance outcomes
process and outcome
over other explanations
In Table 21, I identify my potential researcher biases and how I worked to mitigate their impacts
on my research.
3.4 Chapter Summary and Conclusion
In this chapter, I provided detailed explanation of the case study methodology I
used to answer three of my four research questions. I started with a general discussion
about case studies and their usefulness in qualitative research. I presented the justification
for my case study selections as well as my case study research design. Specifically, I
chose the US CRT 2014/2024 Review and BC CRT Review as my units of analysis
because they set out to make the same decision in different contexts (but the same
64
transboundary basin), the processes recently ended, and I had increased access to the two
processes. I bounded my case studies to Phase 2 of the reviews (from the completion of
the joint Phase 1 technical studies to the delivery of a recommendation to the national
level government, the initiating event for Phase 3). I hypothesized that the four process
characteristics identified in the Water GPA would allow me to evaluate the two
processes, identify barriers to building blocks to good water governance in those parts of
the Columbia River Basin, and determine what about a decision making process
influences water governance outcomes. After explaining my cases, I then described my
approach for data collection, which includes interviews, surveys, and document analysis.
I explained that I will use the Water GPA to deductively code and analyze my data as
well as inductively code to look for and address rival explanations. I also discussed how I
will use basic statistics to analyze the surveys and will compare versions of the US
Regional Recommendation and BC Provincial Decision to track the evolution of the two
decisions. I conclude the chapter with an explanation of my potential research bias and
what I did to combat those biases. Next, I provide background information about the
Columbia River Basin, Columbia River Treaty, and two case studies before my case
study analysis.
65
4 Case Studies Setting: The Transboundary Columbia River and
its Treaty
In this chapter, I provide a detailed look at the setting of the two case studies. In
addition to describing the geography of the basin, I provide an explanation of the Treaty
and its major provisions along with summaries of other transboundary water management
mechanisms governing the river. I take an in-depth look at Columbia River Treaty, the
document at the heart of the two case studies. Information specific to either the Canadian
or US portion of the basin (e.g., Canadian or US laws) is included in the subsequent case
study chapters.
4.1 Basin Geography
The Columbia River is one of many names. It has been described as a river lost
(Harden, 1996), a river loved (Watson, 2012), and the organic machine (White, 1995).
Lewis and Clark called it “The Great River of the West” (Holbrook, 1990). "Nch'iWana," is the Sahaptin word for the Columbia, or "Great River" (Lang & Carriker, 2000).
Other indigenous peoples names translate to English as “The River” (Holbrook, 1990).
The name “Columbia” itself comes from the name of an American ship, the Columbia
Rediviva, captained by Robert Gray who journeyed into the mouth of the Columbia in
May 1792 (The Superintendent of the Coast, 1859).
4.1.1 Political Boundaries and People
The Columbia River basin (CRB) is an international basin shared between the
United States and Canada which covers an area of 259,500 mi2 or 671,000 km2
(Muckleston, 2003) (Figure 8). Seven states and one Canadian province have land within
the basin. A number of sovereign First and Tribal Nations either reside in the basin, have
66
natural resource management authorities, and/or have asserted interests in the basin
(Table 22 and Table 23). Over 7.8 million people live in the basin (Oak Ridge National
Laboratory, 2012). The US portion basin is home to over 7,325,200 million people and
approximately 505,600 people live in the Canadian portion of the basin (Oak Ridge
National Laboratory, 2012).
Figure 8. Columbia River Basin
Cartographer: Kim Ogren
67
Table 22. List of some of the Tribal Nations in the Columbia River Basin
Tribal Nations in the United States*
 Burns Paiute Tribe
 Cowlitz Indian Tribe
 Coeur d’Alene Tribe
 Ft. McDermitt Paiute Shoshone Tribes
 Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes of the
 Kalispel Tribe of Indians
Flathead Nation
 Kootenai Tribe of Idaho
 Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama
 Nez Perce Tribe
Nation
 Shoshone Paiute Tribe of the Duck
 Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation
Valley Indian Reservation
 Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian
 Shoshone-Bannock Tribes of the Ft.
Reservation
Hall Reservation
 Confederated Tribes of the Warm Springs
 Spokane Tribe of Indians
Reservation of Oregon
Table 22 lists the tribes with management authorities and responsibilities affected by the
Columbia River Treaty. This table does not include all tribes in the Columbia River Basin
(Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, 2014).
Table 23. List of some of the First Nations in the Columbia River Basin
First Nations in Canada
Inside the Columbia Basin
KTUNAXA NATION
 Yaqan nuʔkiy (Lower Kootenay Indian Band)
 ʔakink_um_asnuq_iʔit (Tobacco Plains
Indian Band)
 ʔakisq_nuk (Columbia Lake Indian Band)
 ʔaq_am (St. Mary’s Indian Band)
OKANAGAN NATION
 c’əc’əwixaʔ (Upper Similkameen Indian
Band)
 kɬk’ər’míws (Lower Similkameen Indian
Band)
 snpíntktn (Penticton Indian Band)
 stqaʔtkwəɬwt (Westbank First Nation)
 suknaqínx (Okanagan Indian Band)
 swíws (Osoyoos Indian Band)
Outside the Basin with Asserted Interests
OKANAGAN NATION
 spaxomən (Upper Nicola Band)
SECWEPEMC NATION
 Qwʔewt (Little Shuswap Indian Band)
 Sexqeltqín (Adams Lake Indian Band)
 Simpcw (Simpcw First Nation)
 Sk_emtsin (Neskonlith Indian Band)
 Splatsín (Splatsín First Nation)
SECWEPEMC NATION
 Kenpésq't (Shuswap Indian Band)
Table 23 lists recognized First Nations inside the BC portion of the CRB or outside the basin with
asserted interests in the river and/or basin (Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission, 2014).
Roughly 15% (102,400 km2) of the basin is in Canada, specifically interior British
Columbia (BC) (Hearns, 2008). Approximately 85% (567,600 km2) of the basin is below
the 49th parallel, primarily in the states of Idaho, Montana, Oregon, and Washington with
small portions also in Nevada, Utah, and Wyoming. The territory of the four primary
states and single province with the basin ranges from 9% (BC) to 95% (ID) (Table 24).
68
Table 24. Percent of State or Province in Columbia River Basin
State/Province
% of State/Province’s Land in Basin
Idaho (ID)
95%
Washington (WA)
69%
Oregon (OR)
57%
Montana (MT)
17%
British Columbia (BC)
9%
Table 24 displays the percent of a state/province’s within the CRB (Muckleston, 2003).
4.1.2 Hydrology of the Basin
The 1,214 mile (1,954 km) main-stem originates in British Columbia, Canada and
flows through the United States to the Pacific Ocean (Muckleston, 2003). The Columbia
River has several major tributaries including the Kootenay (or Kootenai), Snake, Pend
Oreille (or Pend d’Oreille), Willamette, and Spokane (Hatcher & Jones, 2013; Hearns,
2008; Matheussen et al., 2000). The Kootenay River originates in BC, flows across the
border into Montana (at Koocanusa Reservoir), through part of Idaho, and then back into
BC (Muckleston, 2003). The Okanagan River is also a tributary of the Columbia,
however, the Okanagan River is not included in the Columbia River Treaty because its
confluence with the Columbia is in Washington state downstream of the international
border (Hearns et al., 2008).
Precipitation ranges widely in the basin from 6 to 180 inches a year (1500 – 4600
mm), with most precipitation falling in the winter months (Bonneville Power
Administration, US Army Corps of Engineers, & US Bureau of Reclamation, 2001). The
main-stem of the Columbia River has an annual average flow of 198 million acre-feet
(MAF) or 244 billion cubic meters making it the fourth largest river on North America, as
measured by average annual flow (Bonneville Power Administration et al., 2001; Hearns,
2008; Hyde, 2010). Of that flow, 25% to 40% of the water originates in the BC portion of
the basin in any given year. In times of flooding, upwards of 50% of the runoff originates
69
in BC (Bonneville Power Administration et al., 2001; Ketchum & Barroso, 2006). The
storage capacity on the river is 49.85 MAF, less than 30% of the average annual flow
(Table 25) (Hamlet, 2003; US Army Corps of Engineers, 2011). The basin currently
relies on natural storage via snowpack, which is projected to decrease with climate
change (Hamlet, Lee, Mickelson, & Elsner, 2010; Mckenzie, 2013).
Table 25. Columbia Basin Storage
Project Groups
Projects Authorized and Currently
Operated for System Flood Control
Projects Authorized for Conditional
System Flood Control
Projects Authorized and Operated for
Local Flood Control
Projects Not Authorized for Local
Flood Control but at times may
provide incidental system flood
protection
Irrigation Projects Not Authorized for
Local Flood Control with No Flood
Control Operations
Projects with Minimal or No Storage
Capacity(not effective at reducing
flow at The Dalles)
Active
Storage
(MAF)
Authorized
System
Local
Flood
Flood
Control Storage
(MAF)
(MAF)
Not
Authorized
Incidental
Storage
(MAF)
Total
Storage
(MAF)
19.738
18.282
---
0
18.282
1.275
0.745
---
---
0.745
2.149
---
2.149
0
2.149
2.938
---
0.231
1.96
2.191
1.766
---
---
---
0
0.875
---
---
---
0
Run of River Projects with Minimal or
0.607
----0.345
0.345
No Storage Capacity
Total US Storage
29.348
19.027
2.38
2.305
23.712
Canadian Storage
20.5
15.5
20.5
Total Columbia Basin Storage
49.848
34.527
2.38
2.305
44.212
Table 25 provides a detailed account of the storage available in the CRB for different purposes
and how much of that storage is available for local or system flood control (reproduced from US
Army Corps of Engineers, 2011).
4.1.3 Other Natural Resources in the Basin
There are multiple types of land cover in the basin (Table 26). The three dominant
types of land cover present are evergreen needleleaf forest, shrubland, and grassland
(Table 26). This diverse habitat supports an abundance of wildlife. The Columbia River
70
Basin Biodiversity Atlas (2015) notes that over 700 species of mammals, birds, fish and
reptiles live in the Canadian portion of the basin.
Table 26. Land cover in the Columbia River Basin
Canada
United States
Land cover Type
Area of
Percent of Basin
Area of
Percent of Basin
2
2
Type (km )
Country Unit
Type (km )
Country Unit
Urban and Built-Up Land
445
0.4
6,685
1.18
Dryland, Cropland, and
145
0.13
24,355
4.3
Pasture
Irrigated Cropland and
285
0.26
22,010
3.89
Pasture
Cropland/Grassland Mosaic
525
0.47
6,250
1.1
Cropland/Woodland Mosaic
120
0.11
270
0.05
Grassland
1,610
1.45
101,395
17.9
Shrubland
1,675
1.51
139,280
24.59
Mixed Shrubland/Grassland
435
0.39
285
0.05
Savanna
95
0.09
215
0.04
Deciduous Broadleaf Forest
9,310
8.37
19,115
3.37
Evergreen Needleleaf
68,945
61.99
239,960
42.36
Forest
Mixed Forest
9,445
8.49
3,100
0.55
Mixed Forest
9,445
8.49
3,100
0.55
Wooded Wetland
730
0.66
45
0.01
Barren or Sparsely
540
0.49
35
0.01
Vegetated
Wooded Tundra
7,160
6.44
395
0.07
Mixed Tundra
5
< 0.01
0
0
Snow or Ice
310
0.28
0
0
Table 26 displays the area of different land cover types in the US and BC portions of the CRB.
This table is a product of the Transboundary Freshwater Dispute Database (TFDD), College of
Earth, Ocean, and Atmospheric Sciences, Oregon State University. Additional information about
the TFDD can be found at: http://www.transboundarywaters.orst.edu.
4.2 Columbia River Treaty
4.2.1 Overview
In 1948, severe flooding hit the Columbia River basin causing multiple deaths and
extensive property damage in both Canada and the United States. In response to this and
other flood events as well as to foster hydroelectric development, the US and Canada
ratified the Columbia River Treaty (CRT or Treaty) in 1964. The CRT provisions include
flood control protocols and river usage guidelines for power generation. To ensure equal
sharing of downstream benefits the US paid Canada $64.4 million at treaty ratification for
71
assured flood control for expected avoidance of flood damages through 2024. Each year
the US also returns some power to Canada for projected optimal operation, known as the
Canadian Entitlement, which totals “50% of the agreed projected amounts of energy and
capacity” from US dams on the Columbia River. The estimated value of the Canadian
Entitlement ranges from $100 to $300 million per year (BC Ministry of Energy and
Mines, 2012; Hearns, 2008; United States Entity, 2012).
While the Treaty continues indefinitely, some of its flood control provisions will
expire in 2024 and two other major provisions will come into effect. First, flood control
operations shift from assured flood control for 8.95 MAF of storage in Canada to “Called
Upon” flood control through which the US can request and pay for emergency storage to
prevent flooding after it has utilized its own storage. Second, both nations can choose to
unilaterally terminate the Treaty, given ten years notice. Therefore, if either nation
wanted to terminate the Treaty in 2024 (the earliest date to do so), the US or Canada
would have needed to give notice of its intent in 2014 (Canadian and United States
Entities, 2010; Cosens, 2010a; Hearns, 2008; Stephan & Rea, 2011a). Notice given in
2015 would result in termination in 2025. Thus, the basin is at a critical juncture with the
two nations facing the decision of whether or not to give notice to unilaterally terminate
the CRT or pursue an alternative path. In this situation, four policy options exist: 1)
continuation of the CRT as it currently is ratified, 2) termination with separate
management, 3) joint treaty modification, and 4) termination with new management
agreement (United States Entity, 2012; University of Idaho & Oregon State University,
2011). At stake in this decision is millions of dollars in hydropower revenues, flood
control (now called flood risk management), ecosystem impacts, and other services or
72
benefits impacted by dam operations (Bonneville Power Administration, 2012b; Stephan
& Rea, 2011b; United States Entity, 2012; Watson, 2012). The following subsections
describe the Treaty, its development, implementation, and impacts in greater detail.
4.2.2 History and Development
The development and ratification of the Columbia River Treaty took around two
decades. Figure 9 outlines important dates in the development of the Columbia River
Treaty (Beesley, 1970; Cosens & Fremier, 2014; Hearns, 2008, 2010; Hyde, 2010). In
1944, Canada and the US requested the International Joint Commission (IJC), a joint
water governance body established by the 1909 Boundary Water Treaty between the two
nations, to investigate the potential and make recommendations for dam development in
the upper Columbia basin (Swainson, 1986). In the 15 years the IJC conducted its studies
a major flood occurred in the basin. While the flood impacted a number of communities,
including Trail, BC, the greatest damage occurred in the lower portion of the basin. The
flood wiped Vanport, OR, then the second largest city in Oregon, off the map, killing
more than 15 people and displacing an additional 30,000 (United States Entity, 2014a).
The US and Canada also conducted their own studies and developed different plans as
options for development during that time. The IJC submitted its findings, including
technical studies as well as 16 principles for negotiation (Weber, McNaughton, Adams,
Dansereau, & Stephens, 1959). Formal negotiations commenced on February 11, 1960.
After nine negotiation sessions, the two countries had an agreement which was signed on
January 17, 1961 (Hearns et al., 2008; Hearns, 2010; Hyde, 2010).
73
May 5, 1909
March 9, 1944
May 30, 1948
December 29, 1959
February 11, 1960
January 17, 1961
March 21, 1961
July 8, 1963
June 5, 1964
June 10, 1964
September 16, 1964
Canada and US sign Boundary
Waters Treaty and establish
International Joint Commission
(IJC)
US and Canada request IJC
inquiry
Vanport, Oregon flood
IJC studies and report completed
Formal negotiations begin
Canada and the US sign the
Columbia River Treaty (Treaty)
US Senate approves
Treaty for ratification
BC-Canada Agreement of
1963 signed
Canada’s House of Commons
approves Treaty for ratification
US Senate reapproves
Treaty for ratification
Canada and US ratify the Treaty
Figure 9. Timeline of the Development of the Columbia River Treaty
Drawn from: (Beesley, 1970; Cosens & Fremier, 2014; Hearns, 2008, 2010; Hyde, 2010)
The US Senate quickly approved the agreement for ratification on March 21,
1961 (Hyde, 2010). However, Canada was much slower to accept and adopt the Treaty.
British Columbia objected to the terms of the Treaty, noting that it shouldered the costs of
the Treaty while Canada received all the benefits. To gain provincial support, Canada
signed the 1963 BC-Canada Agreement with the Province (BC Ministry of Energy and
74
Mines, 2012). This agreement transferred the Treaty benefits, authorities, and
responsibilities from the federal Crown to the Province (BC Ministry of Energy and
Mines, 2012). Canada’s House of Commons approved the Treaty in June 1964 and the
two countries ratified the Treaty on September 16, 1964 (Beesley, 1970; Hearns, 2008;
Hyde, 2010).
4.2.3 Dam Authorization and Construction
The Treaty authorized the construction of three dams in Canada (Mica, Duncan,
and Arrow) and permitted the US to construct one in the US (Libby in Montana) (Table
27). The 15.5 MAF of storage authorized by CRT for dams in Canada is often referred to
as ‘Treaty storage’ or ‘Canadian storage.’ The total storage in the Columbia River
system, including Treaty dams as well as other public and private dams is roughly 50
MAF (Hearns, 2008). I include a description of the use of the Treaty storage for flood
reduction in the section titled, ‘Flood Risk Management.’ I discuss dam impacts later in
this chapter.
Table 27. Columbia River Treaty Dams
Date
Dam Name
Reservoir Name
Completed
Arrow Dam
1968
Arrow Reservoir
(Keenleyside)
Storage
Generation
Capacity
Capacity
3
8.8 km or
Columbia
185 MW
7.1 MAF
3
1.7 km or
Duncan Dam
1967
Duncan Reservoir
Duncan
None
1.4 MAF
14.8 km3 or
Mica Dam
1973
Kinbasket Reservoir Columbia
1,805 MW
12 MAF
3
Koocanusa
7.2 km or
Libby Dam
1973
Kootenay
600 MW
Reservoir
4.98 MAF
Table 27 provides information about the CRT dams (Bonneville Power Administration et al., 2001;
Ketchum & Barroso, 2006). Current capacity listed. Power generation at some dams increased
since construction. There are plans to increase capacity at Mica by 1000MW. Mica was built with
an extra 5 MAF of storage. Only 8.6 km3 (7 MAF) is CRT storage and regulated by the Treaty. A
discussion of the extra 5 MAF is in the section titled ‘Non-Treaty Storage Agreements.’
River
75
4.2.4 Joint Coordination
The CRT established the US and Canadian Entities as organizations appointed by
their respective governments to implement the CRT (Table 28). The Administrator of the
Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) and the Northwestern Division Engineer of the
US Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) serve as the US Entity. BC Hydro Power and
Authority (BC Hydro) serves as the Canadian Entity (Hyde, 2010). Together the two
Entities implement the CRT through two committees: the Hydro-Meteorological
Committee and the Operating Committee which develop a number of plans to operate the
Treaty (Table 29).
Table 28. Columbia River Treaty roles
Organization Description
Entities
 Established by CRT Article XIV to
implement treaty on behalf of Canada
and US
Members
 US Entity is appointed by the
President by Executive Order
(Administrator of BPA and the Corps
Northwestern Division Engineer)
 Canadian Entity is appointed by the
Province of BC (BC Hydro)
 Two members, two alternates, and
one secretary from each country
 In the US, the Secretary of the Army
and Secretary of Energy each
appoint a member and alternate
 In Canada, the federal Canada and
the Province of BC each appoint a
member and alternate
 Appointed by PEB with
representatives from both countries
 Established by CRT Article XV
 Reviews reports and other efforts
associated with treaty implementation
Permanent
to ensure CRT objectives are met
Engineering

Helps reconcile technical or
Board (PEB)
operational issues between Entities
 Reports annually to the US and
Canada on Treaty implementation
PEB
 Established by PEB to assist with
Committee
technical aspects of CRT operations
 Created by the Entities to help with
CRT implementation
Operating
 Develops a number of plans and other  Appointed by two Entities
Committee
documents for operating the various
projects in the Columbia River System
 Formed by the Entities to help
implement CRT
Hydro
Provides assistance to the Entities on
Meteorology
 Appointed by two Entities
issues related to hydro-meteorological
Committee
and water supply forecasting; plans/
monitors operation of data facilities
Table 28 summarizes the CRT roles, including a description and who fills the role (compiled from
CRT, 1964; Hearns, 2008; Hyde 2010).
76
Table 29. CRT operating plans and agreements
Plan/Agreement
Description
Timing
A plan developed by the US in consultation with
Flood Control
Canada that specifies maximum reservoir levels for
Updated as
Operating Plan
the four treaty dams at different times of the year in
needed
order to minimize flooding in both countries.
The documents that guides the preparation and use
Principles and
Updated as
of hydroelectric operating plans for Canadian storage
Procedures (POP)
needed
(e.g., AOP and DOP, described below).
A plan that lays out dam operating criteria, which
include: 1) a series of rule curves that direct reservoir
operation for flood control, optimum power
generation, and reservoir refill in average and better
Developed
Assured Operating
water years; 2) critical rule curves for reservoir
annually for sixth
Plan (AOP)
operation for ensuring firm power in low flow
successive year
conditions; 3) operating criteria (e.g., minimum and
maximum flows, procedures for target flows) for Mica
and Arrow that optimize Canadian power generation.
Determination of
Developed
A report that calculates the Canadian Entitlement
Downstream Power
annually for sixth
(amount and delivery) based on the AOP.
Benefits (DDPB)
successive year
A plan based on the AOP that presents operating
alternatives to increase benefits from river flows or
Detailed Operating
consider non-power and/or non-flood control issues.
Annually
Plan (DOP)
Both Entities must agree to the DOP; otherwise the
Entities operate according to the AOP.
Studies that report monthly operation plans and
Treaty Storage
storage in the Canadian dams using actual inflows,
Bi-monthly
Regulation (TSR)
forecasted stream flows, and current reservoir levels
Agreements on non-power and/or non-flood control
Supplementary
issues that can be implemented if accepted by both
As needed
agreements
Entities.
Agreements that determine the actual operation of
Treaty flow
the dams and storage facilities based on the TSR,
Conducted weekly
agreement
supplemental agreements, and/or flood control
via conference call
requirements
Table 29 lists out the various agreements that the CRT Entities develop in order to implement the
CRT. It includes a brief description of each agreement and the timing of when the agreement is
developed/updated (compiled from Hyde 2010, Canadian and US Entity, 2010; Northwestern
Division Army Corps of Engineers, 2004).
The CRT operations (the Detailed Operating Plan (DOP) and those plans
subsequent to it) can include consideration of non-power and non-flood control issues.
However, in order to do so the US and Canadian Entities must agree on their inclusion.
Typically, the operating plans incorporate those additional benefits or issues only if they
are mutually beneficial for the two countries.
77
As part of the Columbia River Treaty (CRT), Canada delivers the agreed upon
flows at the US-Canada border. To follow domestic regulations and requirements, the US
deviates from the various CRT operating plans and alters the river’s flows after they cross
the border via dam and reservoir management (described in Chapter 5). For example, the
Endangered Species Act (ESA) Biological Opinion issued for several salmon species in
the river requires increased spill at dams, reducing power generation. Even if power
generation decreases due to these changes in operations, the US must still return the value
of the Canadian Entitlement calculated from the Annual Operating Plan (AOP) in the
Determination of Downstream Power Benefits (DDPB) report in order to meet its
obligations und the CRT (Hearns, 2008). This is a source of contention between the two
countries (BC Ministry of Energy and Mines, 2012; United States Entity, 2013c).
4.2.5 Hydropower Generation
The Canadian Entitlement is 50% of the projected additional downstream power
benefits that the US must return to Canada at the border as part of the Treaty agreement
to jointly operate dams in Canada for US flood storage and hydropower optimization
(Hearns, 2008; Lesser, 1990; Muckleston, 2003). These downstream power benefits are
“the difference in the hydroelectric power capable of being generated in the United States
of America with and without the use of Canadian storage” (CRT Article VII). Another
way to put it is that the Canadian Entitlement is 50% of the potential benefit of increased
power production due to the additional storage in Canada resulting from the Treaty and
coordinated operations of the various dams and reservoirs in the basin. The Canadian
Entitlement is returned to Canada in the form of energy (in this case, electricity) and
capacity (the ability to generate or transmit electricity; for the Canadian Entitlement this
78
is the maximum amount of power that Canada can request over a single hour) (United
States Entity, 2013c). The BC Treaty review states that from 2000 to 2010 the average
annual Canadian Entitlement was around 1320 megawatts of capacity (which is about
11% of BC Hydro’s total capacity) and approximately 4540 gigawatt hours of energy
(BC Ministry of Energy and Mines, 2013a).
As mentioned above, the Canadian Entitlement is 50% of the projected additional
downstream power benefits. The Canadian Entitlement is calculated based off a
negotiated formula and the Assured Operating Plan (AOP) that the US and Canadian
Entities develop six years prior to the operation year. The AOP projects what the Entities’
studies estimate flows (and therefore hydropower potential) will be. The same year that
the AOP is developed, the Entities create a report called the Determination of
Downstream Power Benefits that calculates the Canadian Entitlement (Hearns, 2008).
Those dam owners/operators that benefit from coordinated river operations
contribute to the Canadian Entitlement. This includes the federal government (i.e.,
Bonneville Power Administration, US Bureau of Reclamation, US Army Corps of
Engineers) as well as some utilities. Chelan County PUD, Douglas County PUD and
Grant County PUD (known as the Mid-Columbia PUDs) contribute approximately 27.5
percent of the power delivered (United States Entity, 2013c).
The Province of BC owns the Canadian Entitlement. Today, it is sold
by Powerex to either BC Hydro or utilities in Alberta or United States at market value.
The money earned then goes into the general revenue account of the Province (BC
Ministry of Energy and Mines, 2013a). To direct some of those monetary benefits to the
Canadian portion of the basin, the Columbia Basin Trust was established in 1995 and
79
received $276 million for power project construction, $45 million for an endowment, and
$2 million a year from 1995-2010 for operations (Cosens, 2010a). The Province of BC
sold the first 30 years of the Canadian Entitlement to a group of US utilities for $254
million (US dollars) (Lesser, 1990). After that agreement expired the Province received
and continues to receive the Canadian Entitlement (BC Ministry of Energy and Mines,
2013a). Depending on your source of information, the Canadian Entitlement (since 1998)
is valued between $100- $350 million (US dollars) per year (BC Ministry of Energy and
Mines, 2012, 2013d; United States Entity, 2013c). There are a few reasons why there is
such a large range in the values cited (Table 30).
Table 30. Reasons for variation in the values cited for the Canadian Entitlement
Reason
Explanation
As the projected river flows vary from year to year so will the projected
Variations in river flow
amount of additional power benefits.
Dollar values placed on the Canadian Entitlement reflect the price
Fluctuation of energy
Canada receives from selling the energy. As energy prices fluctuate for
prices
any number of reasons so will the monetary value of the Canadian
Entitlement.
The US likes to highlight the flexibility aspect of the Canadian
Entitlement. Specifically, how Canada can choose which hours of the
following day that it wants anywhere from zero to a maximum agreed
upon amount of power (in 2013 it was 1,321 MW) to be delivered. The
US believes that this flexibility coupled with the reliability of the delivery
increases the value of the power source.
Some estimates of the value of the Canadian Entitlement consider what
Cost to replace the
it would cost Canada to replace the energy source. For example, BPA
energy
estimated that it would cost British Columbia $250-$350 million each
year to replace the Entitlement with a new gas generating resource.
Table 30 summarizes four reasons why you encounter different dollar values for the Canadian
Entitlement.
Consideration of
flexibility and reliability
in monetary
evaluation
The US and BC disagree on the purpose of the Canadian Entitlement as a benefitsharing strategy. The US Entity states that:
The U.S. Entity’s view is the Canadian Entitlement and the flood risk
management payment were designed to produce a value that reflected an
appropriate total payment to Canada for the cost of Treaty dams by the
time the Treaty could be terminated in 2024. While the Treaty authors did
their best to forecast conditions far into the future, their 1960s-era
80
calculations overestimated regional growth in the demand for electricity
and did not anticipate modern constraints on the operation of the dams to
protect threatened and endangered species. Also, they could not have
anticipated the significant regional development of conservation and
renewable energy resources and other electricity market factors, all of
which influence the value of power in the region. In short, the U.S. Entity
believes that over the life of the original Treaty, the U.S. will have fully
compensated Canada for its investments in Treaty dams [emphasis
added] (United States Entity, 2013c, p. 3).
This presents a view that the Canadian Entitlement is intended to compensate Canada for
the Treaty dams. Canada, on the other hand, views the Canadian Entitlement also as a
means to balance the ongoing dam/reservoir impacts on BC residents and the other
benefits received by the US as a result of the altered timing of river flows (e.g., flows
more amenable to safe navigation and increased water availability in the summer for
irrigation).
The US and Canada also disagree on whether or not the Canadian Entitlement
should be adjusted to what the US considers to be a more accurately reflect the actual
amount of downstream power benefits after taking into account actual US operations.
The AOP and Determination of Downstream Benefits calculate the theoretical flow river
and value of the Canadian Entitlement. The river flow calculations are refined as time
progresses and more information is available about what the actual river flows will be.
The various operating plans under the Treaty set the flows that Canada must deliver at the
border and use that to calculate the projected power generation. However, after receiving
the flows, the US deviates from the operations laid out in the plan in order to comply
with various domestic laws. This means that the dams and reservoirs are often not being
optimized for power generation, but for other benefits. Therefore, less power may be
produced, but the US still must honor its commitment and return the energy and capacity
81
projected six years prior. The US would like to adjust how the Entitlement is calculated
to reflect how it actually operates its dams and reservoir. If these adjustments were made,
the US believes the value of the Canadian Entitlement would be about 10% of what it
currently is (Corwin, 2013; United States Entity, 2013c). Canada believes that the US’s
decision to adjust river flows for other purposes, such as protection of endangered
species, is a domestic decision that should not impact the international arrangement (BC
Ministry of Energy and Mines, 2012, 2013b). Canada’s position is that it upholds its
obligations under the Treaty to deliver river flows at the border according to the various
operating plans and should not be penalized if the US chooses to manage and to use those
flows in ways that are different from the operating plans that optimize power generation
(BC Ministry of Energy and Mines, 2012, 2013b, 2013d). Canada, in fact, believes the
Canadian Entitlement, or other benefit sharing, should increase in order to properly
include the other benefits from Treaty operations, such as irrigation, navigation, and
recreation (BC Ministry of Energy and Mines, 2013d).
4.2.6 Flood Risk Management
Originally called “Flood Control’ the terminology for the storage of water for the
purpose of avoiding flooding has evolved to “Flood Risk Management” and “Flood Risk
Reduction.” Below I discuss two flood control provisions in the Columbia River Treaty.
Assured Flood Control
As part of the CRT, Canada sold 8.45 MAF of Canadian storage to the US for a
period of 60 years, from when the Treaty was ratified on September 16, 1964 until
September 16, 2024 when the provision expires. In 1995, this amount was increased to
8.95 MAF as part of an agreement that allowed Canada to reallocate storage between the
82
Arrow and Kinbasket Reservoirs (BC Hydro and Power Authority, 2013b). This 8.95
MAF is called “Assured Flood Control” or “Primary Flood Control” (Bankes, 2012). The
US paid Canada $64.4 for the assured flood control, which, when negotiated, was
estimated to be worth about half of the flood damages to be prevented by Canadian
storage (Ginalias, 2008; Hyde, 2010). The actual monetary value of assured flood control,
in terms of damages avoided is unclear, if somewhat disputed. The Province of BC notes
that at one PEB meeting it was estimated that, as a result of successful operation of the
Treaty, the US avoided $2 billion in potential flood damages in 2012 (BC Ministry of
Energy and Mines, 2013d). BC also cites Corps estimates that Treaty storage reduced US
flood damage by $260 million in 1972, $306 million in 1974, $227 million in 1996, and
$379 million in 1997--four high flow events (BC Ministry of Energy and Mines, 2013d).
To date, no comprehensive study of damages avoided has been published publically.
Called Upon
“Called Upon” post-20244 is the ability of the US to call upon Canada for
additional storage in the BC reservoirs under certain conditions. Specifically the Treaty
states:
For the purpose of flood control after the expiration of sixty years from the
ratification date, and for so long as the flows in the Columbia River in
Canada continue to contribute to potential flood hazard in the United
States of America, Canada shall, when called upon by an entity designated
by the United States of America for that purpose, operate within the limits
of existing facilities any storage in the Columbia River basin in Canada as
the entity requires to meet flood control needs for the duration of the flood
period for which the call is made (Columbia River Treaty, 1964).
4
Called Upon is also available pre-2024. It has never been used by the US and the terms of the provision
pre-2024 are different than those post-2024, namely in that the amount of compensation is pre-determined
and included in the Treaty text.
83
This provision of the Treaty will continue to exist regardless of whether the Treaty is
terminated or continues (Columbia River Treaty, 1964). The specifications of how the
provision should be implemented are not defined in great detail within the Treaty.
“Called Upon” has always been an available option, but it has never been needed (US
Army Corps of Engineers, 2011). Therefore, the two countries have not negotiated the
specific terms of the Treaty provision. Both the US and Canada reviewed the Treaty, its
protocols, and the notes from the original Treaty negotiations as well as their own laws
and hold differing opinions of how Called Upon provisions should be interpreted. These
differences include: 1) the minimum flow level required before the US can make a call to
Canada, and 2) what it means to make “effective use” of “all related storage in the United
States” (BC Hydro and Power Authority, 2013b; US Army Corps of Engineers, 2011).
In regards to the flow required for Called Upon to be available to the US, Canada
states that the level is 600 kcfs as measured at The Dalles dam, while the US posits the
flow is 450 kcfs (BC Hydro and Power Authority, 2013b; US Army Corps of Engineers,
2011). Bankes (2012) provides an in depth discussion of validity of those two numbers
and also notes that others mention 800 kcfs as the level at which the two countries sought
to control flooding. Citing the CRT and its protocols along with other negotiating notes
from the 1960s, Bankes agrees with the Canadian position on this issue (Bankes, 1996,
2012).
The interpretation of what constitutes “effective use” of storage in the US is
another contested topic. The Province of British Columbia interprets the Treaty statement
“all related storage in the United States” to mean any facility that can effectively reduce
flows at The Dalles. In short, Canada believes that this means the US “must first plan for,
84
and use, to the extent necessary all available US storage that can contribute to providing
US flood protection” (BC Ministry of Energy and Mines, 2013d, p. 10). The US believes
that “effective use” only pertains to the eight reservoirs authorized to operate for system
flood control (as opposed to local flood control, hydropower, conservation, recreation,
irrigation and other reservoir purposes). Those eight reservoirs are: Libby, Grand Coulee,
Hungry House, Albeni Falls, Kerr, Dworshak, Brownlee, and John Day (US Army Corps
of Engineers, 2011). This interpretation by the US Entity is widely supported by various
stakeholder groups in the US as evidenced by their comments on the draft US Regional
Recommendation.
The interpretation of “effective use” has implications for river management in
that, new operations under the effective use procedures will differ from current
operations guided by storage reservation diagrams (SRDs) (BC Hydro and Power
Authority, 2013b; US Army Corps of Engineers, 2011). In years where the Called Upon
provisions might be needed, river flows and reservoir levels might be different from what
we currently see. The questions the two countries are trying to answer right now through
studies conducted as part of their Treaty Reviews are: 1) how different will they be? and
2) what impact will those differences have?
When the US and Canadian Entities conducted the Phase 1 studies, they did a
preliminary investigation of what the post-2024 Called Upon procedures might look like
and how they would impact river operations. In those studies, the Entities assumed three
US headwater projects (Libby, Dworshak, and Hungry Horse) would be operated under
the effective use procedure. The Phase 1 Studies Report provides a summary of their
findings:
85
In the Phase 1 studies, effective use of flood control storage resulted in
U.S. reservoirs being drawn down more frequently and deeper than current
conditions, with reduced refill reliability. Comparing Called Upon years to
non-Called Upon years, Hungry Horse, Dworshak and Brownlee
reservoirs were drawn down an average of 45, 27 and 31 feet deeper,
respectively, by April 30. Depending on the alternative flood control
operation, Libby Reservoir in Called Upon years was drawn down an
average of 11 to 47 feet deeper. At Grand Coulee, for Called Upon years
in which refill began after May 1, the reservoir was drawn down an
average of 14 to 18 feet deeper. In addition, Grand Coulee drafted empty
four years out of the 70-year record in the base condition, compared to 30
years when the flow objective at The Dalles was 450 kcfs and 10 years
when the flow objective was 600 kcfs (Canadian Entity & United States
Entity, 2010b, p. v).
In addition to determining what flood events qualify for Called Upon in terms of
flow and effective use, the two nations must also decide how to calculate the payment for
any calls to Canada. The specific provision in the Treaty states that the US is to pay
Canada for “(a) the operating cost incurred by Canada in providing the flood control, and
(b) compensation for the economic loss to Canada arising directly from Canada foregoing
alternative uses of the storage used to provide the flood control ” (Article VI, Columbia
River Treaty, 1964). In its preliminary view of Called Upon procedures, the Canadian
Entity, BC Hydro, noted that economic losses could include impacts to BC power
production, reduced value of generation due to the drafting and refilling of the reservoirs
associated with Called Upon procedures, as well as impacts to recreation, irrigation, and
transportation interests (BC Hydro and Power Authority, 2013b). The US presents a more
limited view simply noting that as specified in the Treaty “Canada will be compensated
for their operating costs and economic losses” (Article VI) and notes that Canada may
choose to receive some or all compensation in the form of electric power (US Army
Corps of Engineers, 2011).
86
4.2.7 How Disputes are Resolved with the Treaty
Article XVI of the CRT lays out how the two nations are to settle differences in
treaty implementation (Figure 10) (CRT, 1964). First, the two nations are to try to resolve
the difference themselves through the Entities, the PEB, or an exchange of notes. If they
are unable to do so by those three means then they may refer the issue to the International
Joint Commission (IJC) for a decision. If the IJC has not made a decision after three
months then either nation may request arbitration by a tribunal consisting of three
members (one appointed by Canada, one appointed by the US, and one jointly appointed
by both nations5).
To date, no request has been made to the IJC (Hyde, 2010). The Entities have
resolved all disputes on their own or with assistance from the PEB, and on rare occasion,
from the British Columbia government, the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs,
Trade and Development, and the U.S. Departments of State, Army, and Energy. Those
disputes requiring outside assistance centered on three issues: 1) non-treaty storage, 2)
operation of dams for fish and wildlife objectives with power and other impacts, and 3)
methods for calculating the amount and delivery of the Canadian Entitlement. Central to
addressing disputes out of court is a strong working relationship between the US and
Canadian Entities and a concerted effort to focus on win-win strategies in negotiation,
sharing technical information and analysis, developing creative alternatives, and avoiding
legal disputes (Hyde, 2010).
5
If they are unable to form this tribunal within six weeks then either Canada or the US may request the
President of the International Court of Justice to appoint the members.
87
US & CANADIAN ENTITIES
If something is not explicitly stated in the Treaty or is supposed
to be worked out through an exchange of notes, the Entities
work together to define the terms, operations, etc.
PERMANENT ENGINEERING BOARD (PEB)
If the Entities are unable to come to an agreement OR if the
PEB does not agree with their decision, the PEB can direct the
Entities to explore the issue further and come back with a
different arrangement or help negotiate the issues amongst the
Canadian and American members of the PEB.
INTERNATIONAL JOINT COMMISSION (IJC)
Either country can refer a dispute to the IJC. The IJC has three
months (or whatever timeline the US and Canada agree upon)
to render a decision. A decision by the IJC is binding.
ALTERNATIVE
MEASURES
Through an exchange
of notes, Canada and
the US can agree to
alternative procedures
for settling their
differences. One option
mentioned in the Treaty
is referring the issues to
the International Court
of Justice for decision.
ARBITRATION
If the IJC does not issue a decision within the specified
timeframe, then either country can request arbitration. The
arbitration tribunal consists of a member appointed by Canada,
a member appointed by the US and a member serving as chair
appointed jointly by Canada and the US. The tribunal
majority’s decision is binding.
Figure 10. Dispute Resolution in the Columbia River Treaty
Figure created from information in the CRT, Hearns, 2008 & 2010 and Hyde, 2010
One dispute in the implementation of the CRT was how to calculate Capacity
Credit Limit, or the maximum limit for the capacity component for the Canadian
Entitlement (Hyde, 2010). The CRT states that the Capacity Credit Limit will not exceed
“the difference between the capability of the base system without Canadian storage and
the maximum feasible capability of the base system with Canadian storage, to supply
firm load during the critical stream flow periods” (Columbia River Treaty, 1964). More
88
simply put it, determines the maximum capacity owed to Canada based on the
dependable hydroelectric capacity to be credited to Canadian storage (Hyde, 2010). The
issue was first raised in 1981 and the US and Canadian Entities developed a method for
the calculation that was rejected by the PEB. They conducted additional investigations in
the 1990s, to explore the technical aspects of the issue as well as the intent of the CRT on
this issue. This issue was never fully resolved, but the 2003 POP, which assumes all
hydro-electric power generated is usable for meeting peak loads (specifically the 1-hour
peak capability) partially addressed the matter. The Capacity Credit Limit has never
limited the amount of the Canadian Entitlement though it may in the future (Canadian
and US Entity, 2010; Hyde, 2010). Lessons learned from this dispute include: 1) the
importance of clearly defining policies and procedures in order to avoid differing
interpretations (as well as documenting the negotiation process to understand the intent of
a legal agreement), 2) how a good working relationship helps sustain a collaborative
partnership even through disagreements, and 3) the benefit of checks and balances to
ensure that the sovereign parties of the CRT agree with the technical staff’s
implementation.
4.2.8 Other Provisions
The CRT primarily focuses on shaping river flows to maximize certain benefits
from the river, not on allocation of water. Each nation is allowed to divert water for
consumptive uses, which are defined in the treaty as “water for domestic, municipal,
stock-water, irrigation, mining or industrial purposes” (CRT, 1964). Canada is also
allowed to divert flows from Kootenay River in different amounts at different times.
Specifically it is allowed to divert: 1) 1.5 MAF from the Kootenay River into the
89
Columbia River and 2) all Kootenay River flows post-2024 as long as it does not cause
Columbia River flows to drop below 2500 cfs at the border, and 3) all Kootenay River
flows post-2044 as long as it does not cause Columbia River flows to drop below 1000
cfs at the border (Northwestern Division Army Corps of Engineers, 2004).
4.2.9 Upcoming and Potential Changes to the Treaty
As stated previously, while the Treaty continues indefinitely, some of its flood
control provisions will expire in 2024 and others will come into effect. First, flood
control operations shift from assured flood control for 8.95 MAF of storage in Canada to
“Called Upon” flood control through which the US can request and pay for emergency
storage to prevent flooding after it has utilized its own storage. Second, both nations can
choose to unilaterally terminate the treaty, given ten years notice. Therefore, if either
nation wanted to terminate the CRT in 2024 (the earliest date to do so), the US or Canada
would need to give notice of its intent in 2014 (Canadian and United States Entities,
2010; Hearns, 2008).
This provided both nations with the opportunity to pursue a change in governance
of the Columbia River. The Corps and BPA led the US CRT 2014/2024 Review process
to develop a recommendation to the Department of State. The Province of BC’s Ministry
of Energy and Mines conducted its own investigation in order to provide a
recommendation to the Canadian Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade, and
Development. The US Entity delivered its recommendation to the Department of State in
December 2013. The Province of BC delivered its BC Provincial Decision to the
Department of Foreign Affairs, Trade and Development in March 2014. Both recommend
continuing with the CRT, but modifying it. Where the two differ is what issues should be
90
considered in modifying the CRT. For example, the US Entity’s recommendation
advocates that the Treaty should include ecosystem-based function as a primary operating
purpose of the Treaty along with hydropower and flood risk management. The BC
recommendation states that such considerations are already made and may not merit
formal inclusion in the CRT. The two also differ on how benefit sharing should continue
under the Treaty, with the US arguing for changes in the calculation of the Canadian
Entitlement that would reduce its value, while the Province of BC argues that the
Canadian Entitlement should consider other benefits resulting from the CRT beyond
flood control and hydropower (which would maintain or increase the value). Despite
these differences both recommendations acknowledge the importance of incorporating
climate change into future CRT implementation. They also agree that flood control
efforts should be flexible and adaptive while also set at a fixed duration that provides
certainty in river operations. I include a more extensive discussion of the two reviews and
their respective recommendations to their national governments in the case studies to
follow (Chapters 5 and 6).
4.3 Overview of Impacts of the Treaty
The construction of the Treaty dams and implementation of the Treaty through
joint operations impacted the basin in a number of positive and negative ways. In this
section I briefly summarize some of the social, cultural, ecological, and economic
impacts. I first address the impacts of the construction of the Treaty dams and then the
effects of their operation in an attempt to organize the information in a clear manner.
91
4.3.1 Impacts of Dam Development
The Treaty dams inundated 60,000 hectares (231 square miles) of land in British
Columbia, trading other uses of the land for flood control and hydropower generation
benefits (Table 31). Inundation resulted in a loss of jobs and opportunities in the forestry,
tourism, recreation, and agriculture industries. The shift from some of these industries
negatively altered the social fabric of the community. More than 2,300 people were
displaced in BC. Relocation, which involved land sale negotiations, uncertainty, watching
properties being burned or bulldozed after the sale, and moving, was stressful and
emotional (BC Ministry of Energy and Mines, 2012, 2014). In addition to these social
and economic impacts, inundation also negatively affected the ecology of the basin.
Wildlife, including migratory birds, numbers declined due to loss of habitat. Duncan
Dam cut off access to spawning habitat for fish such as kokanee (BC Ministry of Energy
and Mines, 2012, 2014).
Table 31. Area of Pre-Dam Aquatic and Terrestrial Ecosystems inundated by the Treaty
and Revelstoke Reservoirs (ha)
Libby/
Mica/
Keenleyside/
Revelstoke
Koocanusa Duncan
Total
Kinbasket
Arrow
(BC)
Lakes
2343.0
0.0
34992.3
0.0
2583.9
39919.2
Rivers
4896.6
2654.4
2021.9
1490.1
424.5
11487.5
Streams
192.1
53.4
50.6
10.3
17.7
324.1
Shallow ponds
555.1
26.9
102.9
210.6
172.3
1067.8
Gravel Bars
235.6
56.9
3262.8
80.4
22.0
3657.7
Wetlands
5862.6
456.0
3431.6
1071.9
1824.5
12646.6
Floodplains,
Riparian
15526.5
4004.7
3563.5
2173.1
1396.6
26664.4
Forests
Upland
13035.7
4199.1
3844.3
1646.8
860.0
23585.9
Ecosystems
Total
42647.2
11451.4
51269.9
6683.2
7301.5
119353.2
Table 31 lists out the area of land by land type inundated by different CRT dams/reservoirs
(Reproduced from BC Ministry of Energy and Mines, 2012).
92
In addition to those negative impacts, the Treaty dams produced some benefits for
the BC portion of the basin. In addition to the hydropower generation and flood control
benefits laid out in the terms of the Treaty, the construction of the Treaty dams produced
a large number of temporary and permanent jobs. Also, through the Columbia Power
Corporation (CPC), the Province has also been able to increase the generation potential at
the Treaty dams to produce more power for the Province or for sale to the United States
(BC Ministry of Energy and Mines, 2012). Finally, the reservoirs provide some
recreational and tourism opportunities, such as house boats on Lake Koocanusa (although
the opportunities may be limited in some ways due to Treaty and other dam operations).
In the US, dam construction meant 8.95 MAF of storage to protect areas such as
Portland, OR and Vancouver, WA from flooding. To date there has been no major flood
incident requiring a request to exercise the Called Upon option in the Treaty as that
storage and coordinated Treaty operations have provided sufficient protection (BC Hydro
and Power Authority, 2013b; US Army Corps of Engineers, 2011). On the negative side,
the United States’ decision to construct of Libby Dam resulted in a portion of the
Kootenai River being inundated, reduced flood flows (good for flood risk management,
bad for the ecology of the river), and increased winter discharges. The Koocanusa
Reservoir, which stretches from the US and up into Canada acts as a “nutrient sink”
causing the river below the dam in both the US and Canada to be ultraoligotrophic
(phosphorus limited) (Holderman, Hoyle, Hardy, & Anders, 2009). These factors have
greatly reduced fish populations in that portion of the basin (Table 32).
93
Table 32. Fish declines in the Kootenai River downstream of Libby Dam
Fish Species
Percent of Historic Abundance
Bull trout (Salvelirus confluentus)
60
Kokanee (Oncorhynchus nerka)
40 to 50
Westslope cutthroat trout
20
Columbia River redband trout
10
White sturgeon (Acipenser transmontanus)
0 to 10
Burbot (Lota lota)
0 to 10
Table 32 indicates fish decline (in terms of percent of historic abundance still present in 2009) for
species below Libby Dam. I created this table from data in Holderman et al., 2009.
4.3.2 Impacts of Dam and Reservoir Operations
In Canada, Treaty operations result in a number of negative impacts due to the
rate of change in reservoir levels as well as the degree of change over the course of the
year (Table 33). Quickly refilling and drawing down reservoirs results in erosion and
damage to cultural sites. High reservoir levels impede First Nation hunting and gathering,
while low levels expose un-vegetated soil and result in dust storms (BC Ministry of
Energy and Mines, 2012, 2014).
A number of the benefits of Treaty operations in BC are related to the hydropower
generated. Forty-four percent of BC’s power is generated by dams on the Columbia and
Kootenay Rivers. Hydropower generation is a critical component to reducing carbon
emissions in BC. The Province of British Columbia and many local governments are
committed to public sector carbon neutrality. For example, BC passed a law stating that
greenhouse gas emissions will be 33% less than 2007 levels in 2020 and 80% less than
2007 levels in 2050. The Province also makes money off the sale of the Canadian
Entitlement, which it uses in its General Fund (BC Ministry of Energy and Mines, 2012).
94
Table 33. Negative Treaty operation impacts in British Columbia
Impact
Description
Dust
Exposed portions of reservoirs at low water levels can result in dust
storms. In addition to dust, exposed mudflats are unsightly
Erosion
Changing reservoir levels can result in erosion of dikes and bank
slumping. Wave action also results in erosion at that level in the
reservoir.
Debris
High reservoirs can mobilize debris. When reservoirs are drawn down
the remaining debris impedes navigation and other boat access for
transportation and recreation.
Archeological and
cultural sites
Wave action can erode and degrade cultural sites and low levels expose
sites to the elements and human disturbance.
First Nation’s hunting
and gathering rights
Inundation of specific areas can limit First Nation access to areas where
they have hunt and gathering rights.
Reservoir operations result in a variety of economic impacts on different
sectors such as forestry, agriculture, recreation and tourism. For
recreation, low reservoirs limit boat access and angling, while high
Economic Impacts
reservoirs limit shore-based recreation access. Low reservoirs reduce
navigability in Kinbasket and Arrow Reservoirs impeding transport in the
forest sector. High reservoir levels result in high pumping costs to
prepare areas for spring dry-land farming.
Table 33 summarizes different negative impacts of Treaty dam operations in BC. I created this list
from my conversations with BC residents and observations during the BC CRT Review.
Treaty operations also provide regional flood risk management benefits in the BC
portion of the basin (BC Ministry of Energy and Mines, 2012). For example, Treaty
operations helped mitigate a 2012 flood near Creston, BC (BC Hydro and Power
Authority, 2013a). Trail and Castlegar, both situated next to the Columbia River, also
benefit from flood protection (BC Ministry of Energy and Mines, 2012).
In the United States, Treaty dams and their operations are linked to the dramatic
decline of a number of salmonid species (Cosens & Fremier, 2014). These fish as well as
other flora and fauna are integral to the culture and faith of the Tribal Nations within the
US portion of the basin (Cosens & Fremier, 2014; McKinney et al., 2010; University of
Idaho & Oregon State University, 2011; Watson, 2012). While the extirpation of
salmonids from large portions of the basin are due to the construction and operation of
non-Treaty dams, such as Grand Coulee, Treaty operations reduce the spring freshet from
95
melting snow and effectively push the water flows earlier in the water year (Cosens &
Fremier, 2014). Juvenile salmon used to rely on the spring freshet to help transport them
out to the ocean. Now they encounter warm, slow moving reservoirs in their migration to
the sea (Petrosky & Schaller, 2010). Also, in their comments on the Working Draft and
Draft US Regional Recommendation, residents of Lincoln County note lost recreational
and other economic opportunities due to Libby Dam operations.
In addition to these costs, a number of industries and the overall economy of the
US Pacific Northwest benefited from alterations to the hydrograph. Fewer high and low
flows, help ensure safe conditions for the navigation industry. Likewise, irrigated
agriculture and recreation benefit from increased water in times of need. Cheap, abundant
hydropower also attracted a number of energy intensive industries such as aluminum
plants and, more recently, tech industries and their jobs to the basin and surrounding
region such as Intel, Google, Amazon, and Microsoft (BC Ministry of Energy and Mines,
2013d).
4.3.3 Efforts to Mitigate Negative Impacts
I would be remiss to not point out that several organizations and programs
currently work to address the negative impacts of the Columbia River Treaty dams and
their operations. Below I simply describe the various efforts. I do not attempt to
characterize their effectiveness or sufficiency.
In the Canadian portion of the basin, the BC Fish and Wildlife Compensation
Program for the Columbia River is a partnership program between BC Hydro, the
Province of BC and Fisheries and Oceans Canada, done in collaboration with First
Nations, local governments, and community organizations. The FWCP-Columbia, along
96
with its partners, spent $67 million between 1995 and 2012 on 750 projects that help
conserve and improve fish and wildlife habitat in areas affected by BC Hydro facilities
(BC Ministry of Energy and Mines, 2012). The CPC also runs a program that mitigates
environmental impacts of its dam operations (BC Ministry of Energy and Mines, 2012).
The Province of British Columbia established the Columbia Basin Trust (CBT) in
1995 in order to address some of the social, economic, and environmental impacts of the
Treaty dams and operations. As mentioned earlier, when the CBT was established in
1995 it received $276 million for power project construction, $45 million for an
endowment, and $2 million a year from 1995-2010 for operations (Cosens, 2010a). Each
year, CBT sends funds to communities affected by the Treaty based on the population of
the community. The community then distributes that money to various social, economic,
and environmental programs. In 2012, CBT grew its funds to a total of $624.4 million in
investments and provided basin communities with over $18 million that year (BC
Ministry of Energy and Mines, 2012). In addition to distributing funds to communities,
CBT also directly funds a number of programs to address the impacts of the CRT. For
example, recently CBT along with the BC Fish and Wildlife Program, developed the
Upper Kootenay Ecosystem Enhancement Plan, an initiative to address fish, wildlife, and
habitat issues around the Koocanusa Reservoir and tributaries of the Kootenay River.
The BC Hydro Columbia and Duncan Water Use Plans (WUP) incorporate two
approaches to mitigation (BC Hydro and Power Authority, 2007a, 2007b). Through its
WUPs, BC Hydro works to address negative impacts of dam and reservoir management
through physical works, monitoring, and other mitigation programs, which include debris
management, re-vegetation, upgrading boat ramps, and archeological site protection
97
efforts (Table 34). Also, in some cases dams and their reservoirs have operational
constraints, that they must follow (Table 35). The WUPs also may contain soft
constraints, which they try to follow, when possible (BC Hydro and Power Authority,
2007a, 2007b; BC Ministry of Energy and Mines, 2012).
Table 34. Mitigation efforts in the Columbia and Duncan Water Use Plans
ArcheoDebris
ReBoat
Geographic Area
logical
Other
Mgt.
veg. Efforts
sites
Kinbasket Reservoir/
X
X
X
X
Mica Dam
Revelstoke Dam &
X
Reservoir
Mid-Columbia River
& Arrow Lakes
X
Lower Columbia
(below Keenleyside)
X
X
X
X
Sturgeon aquaculture; wildlife
habitat studies
Turbidity & opportunistic high
flows; dredging
Erosion protection; nutrient
Duncan Reservoir
X
X
loading
Duncan Dam
Bull trout migration
Table 34 summarizes the mitigation efforts required of BC Hydro at different dams and reservoirs
along the Columbia and Kootenay Rivers as part of the Columbia River and Duncan WUP (BC
Hydro and Power Authority, 2007a, 2007b).
Table 35. Operational and Soft Constraints in the Columbia and Duncan WUPs
Geographic Area
Operational Constraints
Soft Constraints
Kinbasket
Reservoir/Mica Dam
None
Surcharge (safety& flood control)
Revelstoke Dam &
Reservoir
5 kcfs min. year-round flow
(fish); Jul-Aug experimental flow
for white sturgeon
Surcharge (safety& flood control)
Mid-Columbia River
& Arrow Lakes
None
Lower Columbia
(below Keenleyside)
None
Surcharge (safety & flood control),
vegetation, wildlife, fish, recreation,
erosion, cultural sites, power
generation
Minimum fish stranding; flows for
whitefish & rainbow trout
Target to reach full between Aug
1-10 (recreation. & water
None
supply); 4 ft draft (fish)
100 cfs min. flow (fish), 10 kcfs
Duncan Dam
None
max (FC); Max rates of change
Table 35 summarizes the operational and soft constraints listed by WUPs for different dams and
reservoirs operated by BC Hydro in the BC portion of the CRB (BC Hydro and Power Authority,
2007a, 2007b).
Duncan Reservoir
98
In the United States, the Northwest Power and Conservation Council addresses
negative impacts of Treaty operations through its Fish and Wildlife Program (Northwest
Power and Conservation Council, 2014). Established via interstate compact as authorized
by the Northwest Power Act in 1980 and funded via BPA, the Council’s Fish and
Wildlife Program distributes over $250 million each year to 350 projects, including fish
hatcheries, floodplain and habitat restorations, and efforts to protect and enhance wild
fish populations (Northwest Power and Conservation Council, 2014). It also crafts a plan
every five years to ensure power supply and acquire cost-effective energy efficiency in
the US Pacific Northwest. Other programs designed to address the environmental impacts
from Treaty operations and other dams on the Columbia and its tributaries include the
Federal Columbia River Power System Biological Opinion (as legally required under the
Endangered Species Act (ESA)), requirements resulting from Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission relicensing, ESA Habitat Conservation Plans, and the Columbia Basin Fish
Accords (Bonneville Power Administration et al., 2001; Cosens & Fremier, 2014; Cosens
& Williams, 2012; Cosens, 2010a).
4.4 Other Transboundary Basin Management
The Columbia River Treaty is not the only transboundary water governance
mechanism in the Columbia River Basin. Several other international agreements, some of
which are tied to the Treaty in one way or another, exist between the US and Canada
(Table 36). Transboundary management also happens at a number of different scales,
such as country-to-country, state-to-province (e.g., Washington and BC), state-to-state
(e.g., Oregon and Washington), and so forth. Below I describe some of the major
transboundary efforts across the 49th parallel, dividing the two countries. I selected those
99
mechanisms which are relevant to CRT operations in either that they: 1) help dictate dam
operations, or 2) were brought up as potential negotiation points in either of the two CRT
reviews.
Table 36. Other Transboundary Columbia River Agreements
Agreement
Date
Libby Coordination Agreement
2000
Agreement between Bonneville Power Administration and British Columbia
Hydro and Power Authority relating to (1) Use of the Columbia River Nontreaty Storage, (2) Mica and Arrow Reservoir Refill Enhancement, and (3)
Initial Filling of Non-Treaty Reservoirs
1990
Whitefish Agreements
Prior to 2001
Summer Treaty Storage Agreement
2001
Libby/Canadian Treaty Storage SWAP
2002
Columbia River Treaty Entity Agreement on Operation of Treaty Storage for
Non-Power Uses for January 1 through July 31
2001
Table 36 lists out other transboundary agreements between the US and Canada on the Columbia
River (Hearns, 2008 & 2010).
4.4.1 Boundary Waters Treaty and International Joint Commission
The United States and the United Kingdom (signing on behalf of Canada) ratified
the Boundary Water Treaty (BWT) in 1909. This agreement established the International
Joint Commission (IJC) as a body to address transboundary water management issues and
implement the (BWT) (Shurts & Paisley, 2013). The IJC consists of three representatives
from each country (US and Canada) who work together to complete three tasks. First, it
can make binding decisions and appoint boards of control to oversee those decisions on
actions that impact the natural flow of a boundary water (Paisley, Leon, Graizbord, &
Bricklemyer, 2004). Second, the IJC conducts investigations and provides
recommendations on issues the countries present to it. For example, in 1944 and as
described above in the subsection on Treaty history and development, Canada and the US
referred the issue of dam development and hydropower coordination to the IJC (Hearns,
2008). Finally, the IJC arbitrates disagreements that the two countries refer to it (Paisley
100
et al., 2004). The dispute resolution provisions with the CRT above describe this
responsibility (Hyde, 2010).
4.4.2 Libby Coordination Agreement
Signed in 2000, the Libby Coordination Agreement (LCA) addresses a dispute
over Libby Dam operations that started in 1996 (Barton, 2010). Fish species, including
salmon, steelhead, and sturgeon, were listed as endangered under the US Endangered
Species Act. To comply with that law, the US needs to release more water in the spring
from Libby Dam. Canada objected to this change in operations because it resulted in suboptimal power generation at downstream Canadian facilities on the Kootenay River
(Barton, 2010). The US and Canadian Entities, under the auspices of their Treaty roles,
resolved the conflict through the LCA by finding a way to balance costs and benefits
(United States Entity, 2000). It allows for reservoir releases to aid white sturgeon and
salmon populations spawning downstream of the dam, within the confines of the Treaty
and AOP (Ginalias, 2008). Then as part of the agreement, BC can offset lost power
generation due to changes in Libby operations (Bankes & Cosens, 2014). When the US
operates Libby for those fish interests, BC can generate more power at other facilities and
exchange power with BPA (Hyde, 2010). This is a long term agreement between the
countries and either country can terminate the agreement with 30 days-notice (United
States Entity, 2000).
While the LCA addressed part of the dispute over the operations of Libby Dam,
the issue is not completely resolved. A number of Canadian residents and the Canadian
Entity object to VARQ (variable flow) operations at Libby Dam (BC Ministry of Energy
and Mines, 2013c; Ketchum & Barroso, 2006). This procedure enables higher spring and
101
summer flows for fish and in doing so raises the flood control cover to near median water
conditions (Hyde, 2010). The Canadian Entity notes that this procedure adversely
impacts power production and potentially impacts on flood risk management (Ketchum
& Barroso, 2006). Due to BC resident concerns, the BC Ministry of Energy and Mines
commissioned a study to investigate the impact of VARQ operations on dikes along the
Kootenay River between the border and Kootenay Lake in BC (BC Ministry of Energy
and Mines, 2013c; Weatherly, 2012). The study found that VARQ flood control has not
had a significant negative impact on the Kootenay River diking infrastructure adjacent to
the Kootenay River in BC (BC Ministry of Energy and Mines, 2013c; Weatherly, 2012).
4.4.3 Non-Treaty Storage Agreements
As mentioned above, when Canada constructed Mica dam they built it to store
five MAF more than required by the Treaty. This storage falls outside of the purview of
the Columbia River Treaty. It is constrained by the Treaty in that Canada cannot use the
storage in ways that may alter river flow across the border and therefore reduce the flood
control and power benefits agreed to under the Treaty. Therefore, BC Hydro typically
used the storage for redistributing water among its reservoirs to optimize power benefits
(Bonneville Power Administration, 2011). From the late 1970s until 2012, BC Hydro and
BPA, in their roles as Entities under the CRT, negotiated a series of agreements called
Non-Treaty Storage Agreements (NTSA) to improve the benefits from the storage. The
1984 NTSA also helped settle a dispute over the filling of the Revelstoke Reservoir
(Hyde, 2010). The most recent agreement, negotiated after an agreement expired in 2011,
and signed in March 2012, remains in effect until September 2024 (Bonneville Power
Administration, 2012a). With some NTSAs, BPA also signed companion agreements
102
with the Mid-Columbia non-federal hydroelectric projects that made the Mid-Columbia
PUDs party to the benefits and obligations of the NTSAs (Bonneville Power
Administration et al., 2001).
As with the CRT, the NTSAs focus on mutual benefit to both nations. Over the
years, Canadian benefits include increasing power generation, protecting of whitefish and
trout eggs in the BC portion of the basin, and improving Canadian reservoirs levels for
summer recreation (BC Hydro, 2012). US benefits include access to the non-Treaty
storage, which is used for increasing flexibility to store and release water for ESA-listed
species needing improved flows in the summer, increasing power benefits, and reducing
flows and spill when dissolved gas levels exceed state standards (Bonneville Power
Administration, 2011, 2012a).
4.5 Water Governance in Canada and British Columbia
With an understanding of the transboundary governance of water in the Columbia
River Basin, I now summarize water governance in Canada and British Columbia. This
provides context for the BC case study in Chapter 5. I first describe the roles that the
Federal, Provincial and First Nations play in management of water. I then discuss their
roles in international treaties. Finally I summarize the various domestic laws, regulations,
and guidelines that govern dams and reservoirs in BC.
4.5.1 Water Management Jurisdictions
Canada is all at once a constitutional monarchy, a federal system, and a
parliamentary democracy (Universities Consortium on Columbia River Governance,
2015). The jurisdictions of the federal and provincial governments (called the Crown)
and First Nations are defined in the Canadian Constitution, various statutes, regulations,
103
and guidelines as well as case law (Bankes & Cosens, 2012; Universities Consortium on
Columbia River Governance, 2015). In terms of jurisdiction in water governance, Section
92 of Canada’s Constitution Act of 1867and Section 92A of Canada’s Constitution Act of
1982 identify the exclusive authorities held by the Provincial legislatures. These powers
generally fall under three categories: resources (including water), property, and local
matters (Cairns, 1992; Sparling, 2014). While the Province maintains primary jurisdiction
in water governance, the federal government of Canada still has a role when
transboundary issues such as migratory species are involved (Cairns, 1992; Sparling,
2014). For example, four statutes play a role in water governance in the Columbia River
Basin: Fisheries Act, Species at Risk Act (SARA), Migratory Birds Convention Act, and
International Rivers Improvements Act (IRIA) (Sparling, 2014).
Several First Nations are also sovereigns in the basin and therefore have certain
rights and management authorities. The controversial Indian Act of 1876 provides the
process through the federal government of Canada claimed the authority to define “status
Indian” and manage First Nation governments and resources (Coates, 2008). The extent
of First Nation rights can be defined or reserved in treaties. However, in the BC portion
of the Columbia River Basin First Nations did not cede their lands and enter into treaties.
Therefore, many are going through a land claim process, through which they are seeking
to assert their Aboriginal rights and title with the Federal and Provincial Governments.
Aboriginal rights and title of First Nations are recognized in Section 35 of the Canadian
Constitution Act of 1982 (Bankes & Cosens, 2012; Quig, 2004; Universities Consortium
on Columbia River Governance, 2015). The First Nations in the BC portion of the
Columbia River Basin are still negotiating their treaties with Canada. The Ktunaxa
104
Kinbasket Treaty Council and Northern Shuswap Tribal Council are currently in Stage
4 (agreement-in-principle negotiations) of treaty negotiations (BC Treaty Commission,
2015).
The Crown (i.e., the federal and provincial governments) has a legal obligation to
“consult” and “accommodate” First Nations interests if a proposed government decision
or action may potentially affect an aboriginal right or title (Bankes & Cosens, 2012;
Universities Consortium on Columbia River Governance, 2015). This duty does not
apply to past harms, but rather on present and future actions (Bankes & Cosens, 2012).
Once established First Nations rights and title are not absolute and can be
infringed upon by the federal government of Canada if it: 1) demonstrates a compelling
and substantive legislative objective for doing so, 2) consults with the Aboriginal group
prior to acting , and 3) provides compensation when required (Quig, 2004). However a
series of court decisions (e.g., Haida Nation v. British Columbia, 2004 SCC 73 and
Mikisew Cree First Nation v. Canada (Minister of Canada Heritage), 2005 SCC 69) have
limited the Crown’s ability to override First Nations’ rights and title. Most recently in
2014 (after the completion of Phase 2 of the BC CRT Review), the Supreme Court of
Canada acknowledged that title extends to the entire traditional territory and that the
government must obtain consent from First Nations with Aboriginal title for actions on
that territory in the case Tsilhqot'in Nation v. British Columbia. The case also specified
that the Crown must have “a compelling and substantial public purpose” to infringe on an
Aboriginal title (Universities Consortium on Columbia River Governance, 2015).
105
4.5.2 International Treaties
In Canada, the federal Crown has the authority to enter into, modify and terminate
treaties with other foreign governments (Bankes & Cosens, 2012; Barnett, 2012). As
stated in the Department of Foreign Affairs and International Trade Act, the Minister of
Foreign Affairs is responsible for negotiating international treaties (Barnett, 2012). This
can be more of a supervisory role when another executive ministry is the subject matter
expert. Bankes and Cosens (2012) identify Natural Resources Canada as the likely
subject matter expert at the federal ministry level.
While the federal Crown has a large role in international treaties, BC is also a
major player when it comes to the Columbia River Treaty for two primary reasons. First,
as stated above, the Canadian Constitution reserves a large portion of natural resource
management to the Province. Second, the BC-Canada Agreement of 1963 transferred the
benefits and responsibilities for implementing the CRT to the Province. For these two
reasons, the Province of BC led the Treaty review and it is unlikely the federal
government of Canada would not include the BC provincial government in negotiations
related to the CRT (Bankes & Cosens, 2012).
The potential role of First Nations in any CRT negotiations is less defined. At
minimum it would include consultation of those First Nations that may be affected by a
CRT decision. In their examination of the past and potential future role of US Tribes and
Canadian First Nations in international Columbia River management, Paisley et al.
(2015) note that “there are a number of very compelling policy and pragmatic reasons to
include tribes and First Nations in negotiating and implementing future governance for
the international Columbia Basin” (8).
106
4.5.3 Dam and Reservoir Management
As mentioned above, the Province of BC has primary jurisdiction over water
management. The chief piece of legislation governing water in BC is the BC Water Act
(British Columbia Water Act, 1996). This act will be repealed when the Water
Sustainability Act comes into effect in 2016. The BC Water Act includes provisions for
licensing hydroelectric projects. This licensing process also includes Water Use Planning
and results in a Water Use Plan for the project (British Columbia Water Act, 1996). The
Province issued guidelines for this process in 1998 (Province of British Columbia, 1998).
A Water Use Plan (WUP) is a technical document that defines how water control
facilities will be operated. The general process for creating a WUP is as follows: 1)
conduct a multi-stakeholder consultative process to identify recommendations for a
preferred operating strategy, 2) write WUP based on those recommendations and other
system constraints (e.g., CRT, Non-Treaty Storage Agreements, etc.) 3) provincial and
federal agencies review plan, and 4) the provincial Comptroller of Water Rights accepts
the plan (Province of British Columbia, 1998).
The BC Hydro Columbia River System and Duncan Dam and Reservoir both
have WUPs which include provisions based on the current operations dictated under the
CRT (BC Hydro and Power Authority, 2007a, 2007b). Consultation efforts related to the
development of WUPs provide some insight on what basin residents value and are
concerned about. The Columbia and Duncan WUPs operation constraints include
minimum and maximum flows for recreation, fish and wildlife as well as surcharge
efforts for safety and flood control (Table 35) (BC Hydro and Power Authority, 2007a,
2007b). Columbia and Duncan WUPs mitigation efforts include debris management,
107
revegetation, boat ramp installation and maintenance, and protection/relocation of
archeological sites (Table 34) (BC Hydro and Power Authority, 2007a, 2007b). The
Kootenay River and Koocanusa Reservoir do not have a WUP (BC Ministry of Energy
and Mines, 2012).
Table 35. Columbia and Duncan Water Use Plan operational and soft constraints
Geographic Area
Operational Constraints
Soft Constraints
Kinbasket
None
Surcharge (safety& flood control)
Reservoir/Mica Dam
5 kcfs min. year-round flow
Revelstoke Dam &
(fish); Jul-Aug experimental flow Surcharge (safety& flood control)
Reservoir
for white sturgeon
Surcharge (safety & flood control),
Mid-Columbia River
vegetation, wildlife, fish, recreation,
None
& Arrow Lakes
erosion, cultural sites, power
generation
Lower Columbia
Minimum fish stranding; flows for
None
(below Keenleyside)
whitefish & rainbow trout
Target to reach full between Aug
Duncan Reservoir
1-10 (recreation. & water
None
supply); 4 ft draft (fish)
100 cfs min. flow (fish), 10 kcfs
Duncan Dam
None
max (FC); Max rates of change
Table 34. Columbia and Duncan Water Use Plan mitigation efforts
ArcheoDebris
ReBoat
Geographic Area
logical
Other
Mgt.
veg. Efforts
sites
Kinbasket Reservoir/
X
X
X
X
Mica Dam
Revelstoke Dam &
X
Reservoir
Mid-Columbia River
Sturgeon aquaculture; wildlife
X
X
X
X
& Arrow Lakes
habitat studies
Lower Columbia
Turbidity & opportunistic high
X
(below Keenleyside)
flows; dredging
Erosion protection; nutrient
Duncan Reservoir
X
X
loading
Duncan Dam
Bull trout migration
In addition to Provincial licensing, dam and reservoir management must follow
federal legislation such as the Fisheries Act, Species at Risk Act (SARA), Migratory
Birds Convention Act (MBCA), and International Rivers Improvements Act (IRIA). For
example, the Department of Fisheries and Oceans can set minimum flows, require the
108
construction of fish ladders or screens, and mandate fish habitat protection in order to
conserve and protect fish and their habitat (Hutchings & Post, 2013; Kwasniak, 2004). I
summarize the purpose and relevance of these statutes in Table 37.
Table 37. Canada's federal environmental legislation relevant to dams and reservoirs
Act
Purpose
Relevance
“to provide for the sustainability and ongoing productivity of
Fisheries Act
International
Rivers
Improvement
Act
commercial, recreational and Aboriginal fisheries” (Section
6.1)
[the original Fisheries Act purpose was repealed in 1985;
the above quote which came into effect in 2013 clarifies the
purpose of decision-making under the fisheries protection
provisions]
“The Governor in Council may, for the purpose of
developing and utilizing the water resources of Canada in
the national interest, make regulations
(a) respecting the construction, operation and
maintenance of international river improvements;
(b) respecting the issue, cancellation and suspension of
licenses for the construction, operation and maintenance
of international river improvements;
(c) prescribing fees for licenses issued under this Act;
(d) respecting the exemption of international river
improvements from the operation of this Act;
(e) authorizing the conduct of inspections under this Act in
respect of any improvement exempted from the operation
of this Act under the authority of regulations made under
paragraph (d) and setting out the purposes for which
those inspections may be carried out; and
(f) designating provisions of the regulations for the
purpose of paragraph 33(1)(b).”
[IRIA doesn’t have a listed “purpose” but rather
“regulations” listed here]
Cited as reason
why restoration of
salmon into
Canada is a
federal, not a
provincial decision
May potentially
justify increased
role of federal
government in any
CRT negotiations
Migratory
Birds
Convention
Act
“protecting and conserving migratory birds — as
populations and individual birds — and their nests” (section
4 of MBCA)
Dam and reservoir
operations can
flood nesting and
other habitat
Species at
Risk Act
“To prevent wildlife species from being extirpated or
becoming extinct, to provide for the recovery of wildlife
species that are extirpated, endangered or threatened as a
result of human activity and to manage species of special
concern to prevent them from becoming endangered or
threatened” (section 6 of SARA)
White sturgeon
present are listed
under SARA
Table 37 highlights the federal environmental statutes in Canada that are relevant to dam and
reservoir operations in the BC portion of the Columbia River Basin. Content is drawn from statute
text, conversations with basin residents, and case study interviews.
109
4.6 Water Governance in United States and Pacific Northwest Region
This section provides a summary of how water is governed in the United States
and then more specifically within the Pacific Northwest, where the Columbia River Basin
is situated in the US. Below I include a description of the governance systems to give
background information on the system, or context, in which the US Columbia River
Treaty 2014/2024 Review (US CRT 2014/2024 Review) took place. The basic
governance structure of the United States is that of a federal system. Water management
in the United States is extremely complex, guided by a wide array of laws and programs
across multiple levels of governance that vary over geographic space and are divided up
among many jurisdictions (Cody, Schneider, Tiemann, & Relf, 2012; Lantz, Bourget, &
Manous, 2014).
4.6.1 Federal, State, and Tribal Jurisdictions in Water Management
The federal government, Tribal Nations, and the states all have roles in water
management within the US. The Tenth Amendment states that “the powers not delegated
to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to
the States respectively, or to the people,” which recognizes the inherent powers of the
states. States have the authority and responsibility to manage their waters, including
allocation of water. All seven states that include portions of the Columbia River Basin
allocate their waters via the Prior Appropriation Doctrine, though the specific
interpretations of the doctrine vary from state to state. The federal government retains
jurisdiction in a number of areas of water governance. The delineation of these authorities
is outlined in the US Constitution via the “Commerce Clause” and Tenth Amendment
(Ferrey, 2010). The US Constitution states that Congress has the power “to regulate
110
Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States, and with the Indian
Tribes” (Article I, Section 8). This means that the federal government maintains a role in
managing waters and activities that affect interstate commerce. In Gibbons vs. Ogden
(1824), the Supreme Court held that the Commerce Clause included the power to regulate
navigation (Ferrey, 2010). The federal government also maintains authority in water
governance via the “Property Clause” of the US Constitution which allows the federal
government to enact statutes to manage federal lands and through the reservation of
federal water rights (e.g., water for national parks and Native American reservations.
Therefore, as water crosses the border into the US, it is subject to a number of
federal laws, including the Clean Water Act (CWA) which regulates water pollution, the
Rivers and Harbors Act through which the Corps maintains authority over navigation and
flood control, the Endangered Species Act (ESA) which in recent years has altered dam
and reservoir operations in order to conserve salmon species, the Reclamation Act which
authorized reclamation (irrigation) projects, like Grand Coulee, in the arid west, and
Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) licensing/relicensing of non-federal
dams (Table 38).
111
Table 38. US federal environmental legislation relevant to dams and reservoirs
Act
Relevance to basin and Treaty review
Authorizes the Corps to own and operate various dams and
reservoirs for a variety of purposes, including navigation and flood
control. In terms of flood control, the Corps is often required to
Rivers and Harbors Act
operate dams and reservoirs in a way that keeps river flows below a
certain level. For example, the Corps states that it is authorized to
operate its Columbia River dams to keep flows below 450 kcfs at The
Dalles.
Mandates the conservation of ecosystems and the species that
depend on those ecosystems. Several species including salmon, bull
trout, and white sturgeon are listed as threatened or endangered in
the basin. As such they are afforded certain protections, including
Endangered Species Act those under Section 7 of the ESA, which prohibit action by a federal
agency that may jeopardize a listed species or adversely modify its
critical habitat. The US portion of the basin in entangled in a multiyear lawsuit over whether federal dams and reservoirs are being
operated in accordance with this statute.
Clean Water Act
Regulates water pollution and development of wetlands.
Among other responsibilities, FERC issues licenses for construction
and operation of non-federal dams that must be renewed roughly
Federal Energy
every 50 years. This process provides a venue for public input into
Regulatory Commission
private dam construction and operation. Section 10(a)(2)(A) of the
licensing (Federal Power
Federal Power Act requires FERC to consider the extent to which a
Act)
project is consistent with federal or state plans for improving,
developing, or conserving the rivers affected by the project.
Authorizes the “reclamation” of arid land in the western US for
purposes of agriculture. It authorizes the Department of the Interior
and Bureau of Reclamation to construct and operate irrigation and
Reclamation Act
power projects. Thus the Bureau of Reclamation owns and operates
dams and reservoirs, like Grand Coulee, for irrigation and power
production. Grand Coulee is the largest producer of hydro-electric
power in the nation and also blocks salmon migration.
Table 38 highlights the federal environmental statutes in the US that are relevant to dam and
reservoir operations in the US portion of the Columbia River Basin.
The Endangered Species Act (ESA) is one federal law with implications for water
management in the basin. It seeks to conserve the ecosystems upon which endangered or
threatened species depend. It does this by offering special protections to species that are
listed as endangered (at risk of extinction) and threatened (at risk of becoming
endangered). These protections include prohibiting the “take” of an endangered species,
which is defined in Section 3(18) of the ESA as “to harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot,
wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.”
112
Section 7 of the ESA also requires that federal agencies not take any actions that might
jeopardize the continued existence of a threatened or endangered species or result in
adverse modification of its critical habitat 6. If the federal agency (called the action
agency) seeking to wants to act and a threatened or endangered species may be present it
must go through the ESA Section 7 consultation process whereby, depending on the
species, the National Marine Fisheries Service (for ocean and anadromous species) or US
Fish and Wildlife Service (for all other species) (both called the listing agency by the
ESA) must review the action and its possible consequences to issue a Biological Opinion.
The Biological Opinion will either state that there is no jeopardy (and the action agency
can proceed) or will offer a jeopardy opinion in which the listing agency shares any
reasonably prudent alternatives the action agency can take to proceed with the action in a
way that would not jeopardize the listed species. There are a number of listed endangered
and threatened species in the Columbia River Basin, most notably several species of
salmon (including 13 distinct population segments), bull trout and white sturgeon. The
Biological Opinion for consultation on the impact of operations of the federal dams on
salmonids on the Columbia is part of an ongoing lawsuit.
Tribes have a unique role in the management of water and other natural resources.
The specifics vary, but generally the tribes have reserved sections of land for the tribe as
well as rights to access and manage various natural resources. Tribal rights in ceded lands
may be spelled out explicitly or be implied in the treaty, statute, or presidential executive
order establishing the reservation or in court decisions (which often seek to interpret the
treaty, statute or presidential executive order). For example, tribes may have explicitly
6
Critical habitat is therefore also important in the basin. Section 4 of the ESA lists the criteria and process
for designating critical habitat.
113
reserved rights to fish “all usual and accustomed places” outside of their reservations, as
well as hunt, and gather roots and berries. An example of an implied reservation of rights
would be implied rights to water for the purpose of the reservation land (National
Research Council, 2004), or associated with, for example, the treaty right to fish.
The US also holds tribal resources and land in a trust with the tribes as the
beneficiary of the trust. This often referred to as the “tribal trust responsibilities” of the
federal government, which requires it to consider tribal interests in federal agency
actions. Executive Order 13175 and its accompanying memorandum explain the
requirements for federal agency consultation and collaboration with tribes.
4.6.2 International Treaties
In addition to these various authorities and jurisdictions related to water
governance is also the issue of international treaties. The “Treaty Clause” of Article II,
Section 2, Clause 2 of the US Constitution allows the President to negotiate agreements,
with foreign governments. These agreements must then be approved by a two-thirds vote
in the US Senate. Those two approvals ratify a treaty (US Senate, 2015). This treaty
process is one of several ways for the US to enter into an international agreement with
another country (Bankes & Cosens, 2012, 2014).
The US Department of State is the executive agency that works on behalf of the
President to coordinate the interagency process for authorization to negotiate
international agreements via the Circular 175 procedure (US Department of State,
2015b). Circular 175 is a set of regulations that address how the Department of State will
ensure it uses its treaty negotiating power properly (US Department of State, 2015a).
Since the CRT is an existing treaty between the US and Canada, the appropriate Circular
114
175 request is action memorandum from a bureau or office in the Department of State to
a Department of State Assistant Secretary or higher official, requesting authority to
negotiate, conclude, amend, extend, or terminate the Treaty. The memorandum would
include several components, including: 1) the proposed action, 2) principal features of the
proposal, 3) potential problems as well as solutions, 4) benefits of the proposed action, 5)
notes on needed congressional consultations or environmental impact assessments, 6) text
to be negotiated, and 7) notes on resources committed by the proposed action, and 8)
legal basis for action (US Department of State, 2015a). The memo must be approved by
all interested federal agencies as well as pertinent offices within the Department of State.
4.6.3 Dam and Reservoir Management
There are numerous private and public dams on the Columbia River and its
tributaries. In the US, dams are authorized to operate for a variety of purposes in addition
to hydropower and flood risk management, such as navigation, irrigation, and recreation.
Depending on the owner of the dam, its purpose, and its location the dam requires
authorization from the state and/or federal government. Authorization from the state
and/or federal government dictates the purposes of the dam and reservoir (e.g., irrigation,
flood control, etc.). Some of the dams and reservoirs within the US territory make up the
Coordinated Columbia River System. In addition to the CRT, they operate under
regulations and requirements including, but not limited to, the Pacific Northwest
Coordination Agreement (PNCA), fish and wildlife statutes, and other operating
requirements. To follow domestic regulations and requirements, the US deviates from the
various CRT operating plans and alters the river’s flows after they cross the border via
dam and reservoir management. As noted in Chapter 4, if power generation decreases due
115
to these changes in operations, the US must still return the value of the Canadian
Entitlement calculated from the Annual Operating Plan (AOP) in the Determination of
Downstream Power Benefits (DDPB) report in order to meet its obligations und the CRT.
In the following subsections, I describe the domestic regulations and requirements for
dams and reservoirs in the Coordinated Columbia River System.
Pacific Northwest Coordination Agreement
The PNCA is an agreement between federal project operators and hydroelectric
generating facilities in the Pacific Northwest (private and public) (Bonneville Power
Administration et al., 2001; Hearns, 2008). It establishes processes that coordinate the use
of planned Canadian storage operations with US project operations in order to optimize
system reliability and power production, after giving priority to non-power objectives on
a day-to-day basis. The current agreement expires in 2024. The PNCA Coordinating
Group (BPA, the Corps, Reclamation, and public and private utilities in the US Pacific
Northwest and western Canada) is the group that implements the agreement using a
number of rule curves for reservoir operations developed by the Northwest Power Pool
Study Group each year (Bonneville Power Administration et al., 2001).
Environmental and Fish and Wildlife Statutes
The most notable environmental regulation in the basin is the Endangered Species
Act (ESA), which requires alterations to operations such as increased spill, reservoir
drawdowns, and increased/altered timing of flows under a Biological Opinion issued for
endangered salmon species. To implement the ESA Biological Opinion the Corps works
as part of the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) Regional Implementation
Forum, which includes an Executive Committee and Implementation Team, that are
116
supported by the Technical Management Team (TMT), Water Quality Team (WQT),
System Configuration Team (SCT), and others. The TMT is an inter-agency technical
group that makes recommendations on dam and reservoir operations for the Coordinated
Columbia River System in order to improve passage conditions for adult and juvenile
anadromous fish. Chaired by the Corps, the TMT includes representatives from the
NMFS, US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), Bureau of Reclamation (BOR), BPA,
the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), National Weather Service (NWS), state
agencies, and Native American Tribes (Bonneville Power Administration et al., 2001).
The WQT works to lower total dissolved gas levels and water temperatures, which can be
harmful to fish and wildlife. The SCT considers how to improve the physical structures in
the hydro-electric system for optimal performance and fish and wildlife concerns
(Bonneville Power Administration et al., 2001).
Operating Requirements
Each dam and reservoir has specific requirements such as minimum instantaneous
discharge, minimum daily discharge, and maximum hourly and daily rates of change for
project flows and minimum and maximum reservoir levels, downstream water surface
elevations, and maximum hourly and daily rates of change for reservoir elevations.
Requirements may be system-wide (applying to multiple dams/projects) or site specific
(applying to only one project or one location). These requirements are defined when a
project is designed and/or authorized in the authorizing legislation (for federal projects)
or in the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) operating license (for nonfederal projects). Requirements may change or be added later (Bonneville Power
Administration et al., 2001).
117
4.7 Chapter Conclusion
The transboundary Columbia River Basin is a complex social-ecological system.
To optimize flood control and hydropower benefits in the basin, Canada and the US
ratified the Columbia River Treaty (CRT or Treaty) in September 1964. Together, as
directed by the Treaty, the Canadian Entity (BC Hydro) and US Entity (BPA and the
Corps) implement the provisions of the Treaty. Construction of Libby, Mica, Arrow
(Keenleyside), and Duncan and operations under the Treaty resulted in a number of costs
and benefits throughout the basin. While the Treaty continues indefinitely, certain sunset
and sunrise clauses of the Treaty come into effect in 2024. Those changes and
disagreement between the US and Canada on how to interpret and implement the new
provisions, along with the impacts of the Treaty, incentivized the Treaty signatories and
residents of the basin to reconsider the water governance regime of the past 50 years.
With this history and the upcoming and potential changes to the Treaty approaching, the
two countries embarked on separate reviews of the Treaty to determine if they wanted to
continue with, modify, or terminate the Treaty. In the following two chapters, I describe
and evaluate those two reviews in order to identify lessons learned for the future
governance of the river.
118
5 Treaty Review Case Study: British Columbia’s Columbia River
Treaty Review
In British Columbia, the Ministry of Energy and Mines led the Columbia River
Treaty (CRT or Treaty) review in Canada (Province of British Columbia, 2015). The
federal government of Canada, maintains its right to enter treaties with foreign
governments (and therefore must approve any changes to the Treaty), but since the 1963
Canada-British Columbia Agreement transferred most Columbia River Treaty benefits,
rights and obligations to the Province of BC, Canada deferred the CRT decision to the
Province. Therefore, the Province of BC took the lead in Canada’s review of the Treaty. I
refer to this process as the BC CRT Review. The BC Ministry of Energy and Mines (the
parent organization to BC Hydro Power and Authority, the BC Entity of the CRT) housed
the BC CRT Review.
An Executive Director and small team coordinated the review process in order to
collect information for the Province to consider in its decision. That team worked with an
Executive Steering Committee (with federal and provincial ministry members), First
Nations, and the BC portion of the basin to develop and guide the BC CRT Review
process. The CRT Review by BC and Canada contains three tracks: 1) First Nation
consultation, 2) basin consultation, and 3) technical studies (Figure 11). The Province
issued a Provincial Decision in March 2014 (Province of British Columbia, 2014). In the
following subsections, I describe the BC CRT Review process and the development of
the BC Provincial Decision.
British Columbia-Canada Columbia River
Treaty Review - Basic Process Structure
Natural
Resources
Canada
BC Ministry of
Energy & Mines
First Nation
Consultation
Technical
Analysis
Department of Foreign
Affairs, Trade and
Development
Province of
British
Columbia
Sounding
Board
Fish and Wildlife
Technical
Committee



(Consulted separately including some bands)








Columbia
Basin Trust
Technical
Conference
Youth
Engagement
Public
Meetings
Pre-Review
Outreach
Castlegar
Golden
Fauquier
Jaffray
Revelstoke
Technical Analysis
Environmental Advisory Committee:
 BC Ministry of Energy, Mines &
Natural Gas
 BC Ministry of Environment
 BC Ministry of Forests, Lands &
Natural Resource Operations
 Natural Resources Canada
 Environment Canada
 Fisheries and Oceans Canada
 BC Hydro
Local
Government’s
Committee
Stakeholder
Engagement
Nelson
First Nations
BC Hydro
(CAN Entity)
Basin
Consultation
Environmental
Advisory
Committee
First Nations:
Ktunaxa Nation
Secwepemc Nation
(Shuswap Band)
Okanagan Nation
Executive
Committee
Fish and Wildlife Technical Committee:
Environment Canada
Fisheries and Oceans Canada
BC Hydro
Ministry of Forests, Lands & Natural
Resource Operations
Ministry of Environment
Canadian Columbia River Inter-Tribal
Fish Commission
Ktunaxa First Nation
Sexqeltkemc te Sewepemc First Nation
Trail
Nakusp
Valemont
Basin Consultation









Sounding Board:
1 or more representatives
Northern Kinbasket  Upper Arrow
Southern Kinbasket  Lower Arrow
Revelstoke
 Koocanusa
Kootenay Lake
 Creston
Lower Columbia
 Duncan
North Kootenay Lake
Kootenay and Arrow
Upper & Lower Columbia
Ktunaxa Nation Council
Figure 11. Institutional map of BC-Canada CRT Review structure
Local Governments Committee: 1 or 2
representatives each
 Regional District of Central
Kootenay
 Columbia Shuswap Regional District
 Regional District of East Kootenay
 Regional District of Kootenay
Boundary
 Village of Valemount
 Association of Kootenay Boundary
Local Government
120
5.1.1 First Nation Consultation
The Crown (federal and provincial governments) is required to consult with First
Nations when an action under consideration may impact First Nation’s rights and title. In
the BC CRT Review, the Province led First Nation consultation. To meet consultation
obligations, the Provincial BC CRT Review Team reached out to the First Nations within
the basin and with asserted interests in the basin. This was initially done via an official
letter. The First Nations asked that federal Canada also participate in the consultation led
by the Province. The federal government took a more of a back-seat, observer role.
The Province and federal government consulted each First Nation and sometimes
different Bands within the Nation separately. The Province designed and proposed a
consultation process to the Nations in the initial consultation letter. Most First Nations
and Bands adopted that process, but one rejected that process and asked to design its own
consultation process. This First Nation worked with the Provincial review team to
develop a consultation process it felt was a more acceptable (though not completely
satisfactory) means of consultation. First Nations were also given the opportunity to
participate in the BC CRT Review technical committees. Some First Nations accepted
this invitation. Others did not because they did not agree with the technical committees’
approach to the technical studies and did not want their participation to be considered an
endorsement of the technical process or its results.
5.1.2 Basin Consultation
Basin consultation consisted of a three pronged approach: 1) elected officials
from local governments within the basin, 2) representatives from different interests and
different geographic areas of the basin, and 3) engagement of the general public. The
121
Local Governments’ Committee (LGC) consisted of 10 representatives from four
regional districts, one village, and one local government in the basin. The LGC members
also served as liaisons between the BC CRT Review, their local government, and their
constituents. Their role was to help educate citizens about the CRT and its review,
provide updates on the progress of the review to their communities, and share
perspectives and concerns they heard from their constituents with the BC CRT Review
Team.
The Sounding Board consisted of citizens acting as representatives of different
geographic areas of the basin. The members of the Sounding Board represented a diverse
set of interests, including businesses, economic development agents, as well as
recreation, environmental, tourism, business, agricultural and community organizations.
The Sounding Board Terms of Reference notes that the function of the body was “1) to
act as “sounding board” on Columbia River Treaty reports and other information,
providing feedback, opinions and suggestions for improvement, 2) to provide feedback to
key Treaty Review questions, in particular regarding Basin interests (e.g. environment,
socio-economic, domestic), [and] 3) to help inform recommendations to government on
the future of the Treaty” (BC Ministry of Energy and Mines, 2013b, pp. 1–2). The
Sounding Board met twice during the BC CRT Review to review technical studies and
discuss what concerns in the basin were tied to the CRT and which were domestic, nonTreaty issues.
For stakeholder engagement, the BC CRT Review held public meetings at nine
different basin communities at various and multiple occasions, over the course of the
decision making process. The BC Review Team collected views and concerns from
122
residents, reviewed the analyses conducted, shared initial/draft versions of the reports and
Provincial Decision, and answered questions at four sets (or phases) of meetings (BC
Ministry of Energy and Mines, 2014). In addition to these meetings, a set of pre-review
public meetings were held by the Columbia Basin Trust, a Crown corporation formed in
1995 to support the social, economic and environmental well-being in the BC portion of
the Columbia River Basin impacted by the CRT. This initial outreach effort served two
purposes. Its first goal was to educate the basin about the Columbia River Treaty. Then
later it ended up serving as a means by which to introduce the BC CRT Review Team.
Other stakeholder engagement efforts included hosting a technical conference to discuss
the technical studies and scientific information from the BC CRT Review in greater depth
than the public meetings. Specific efforts were also made to engage youth in the basin, by
including them on the Sounding Board and through the development of a classroom
lesson for students in Grade 6.
5.1.3 Technical Studies
The BC CRT Review Team from the Ministry of Energy and Mines led the
technical studies along with BC Hydro, the Canadian Entity for the CRT. Two technical
committees completed the technical studies, the Environmental Advisory Committee and
the Fish and Wildlife Technical Committee. The committees consisted of representatives
from federal ministries, provincial ministries, and First Nations. The BC CRT Review
Team, BC Hydro, and the two committees scoped the technical studies, though
individuals I spoke with noted that the BC CRT Review Team and BC Hydro had greater
control of the scoping. The Sounding Board, LGC, and members of the public also had
the ability to request additional technical work and information. The primary technical
123
work was to develop several post-2024 scenarios, model them, and assess the impacts of
those scenarios on a variety of performance measures on topics such as ecosystem health,
hydropower generation, flood control, dust storms, erosion, and recreation.
5.2 Development of the British Columbia Provincial Decision
With guidance from professional negotiators, the BC Review Team wrote a draft
version of the Provincial Decision, taking into consideration what they heard through the
various BC CRT Review forums. The BC Provincial Decision consists of a preamble and
fourteen principles, which the Province notes will guide “any changes to the Treaty that
may be pursued by the Province.” Initially, the Review Team came up with thirteen
principles. It added a fourteenth, to avoid the unlucky number thirteen. The original plan
was not to release the draft version (referred to as the draft Provincial Recommendation)
for public comment. However, the BC Review Team decided to release the draft
document for public review, in part because the US provided that opportunity to its
residents. Sovereigns and stakeholders in the basin commented on the document via the
BC CRT Review website, community meetings, and government-to-government
meetings. The actual comments on the draft Provincial Recommendation are not
available to the public; however, some are included in the Final Public Consultation
Report and summary of the November 2013 community sessions produced by the BC
CRT Review. The BC CRT Review Team reports on residents’ views of the draft
Provincial Recommendation reflect the views I heard during my interviews (discussed
further in the results portion of this chapter). The LGC also issued a separate
recommendation to the federal government of Canada. Likewise, the LGC’s
recommendation closely mirrors the BC Provincial Decision, with some exceptions.
124
There are not many differences between the draft Provincial Recommendation
and Provincial Decision. However, there are a few revisions worth noting before I share
my analysis of how the BC CRT Review process influenced the Provincial Decision. I
simply list the differences in this section and will explain how or why those revisions
were made later in the Chapter 7 discussion of what influenced the BC Provincial
Decision.
Two important revisions in the BC Provincial Decision are related to impacts to
First Nations and their rights. In the preamble, referring to First Nation Consultation, the
BC CRT Review Team added the sentence, “Impacts to aboriginal territories, cultures,
and practices from the construction and operation of the Treaty dams and reservoirs
remain a serious and ongoing concern to First Nations.” This new language specifically
calls out impacts to First Nations, which was missing from the draft version of the
document. The BC Provincial Decision also adds that the BC CRT Review investigated
how do address First Nations’ other interests “in the spirit of the New Relationship 7 and
the Transformative Change Accord.8” Later in the BC Provincial Decision principles, the
language, “continue to consult with First Nations on a government-to-government basis
and engage with Basin communities throughout the negotiation process” replaced
“engage with First Nations and communities throughout any negotiation process”
(emphasis added). This revised language highlights how the legal obligation to consult
First Nations differs from a commitment to engage the public.
7
The New Relationship is a vision document that lays out an initial plan to help move toward
reconciliation of Aboriginal and Crown Titles and Jurisdictions within British Columbia.
8
The 2005 Transformative Change Accord is a 10-year agreement between the Province, the Federal
Government and First Nations (BC Assembly of First Nations, First Nations Summit, and the Union of
B.C. Indian Chiefs).
125
There are four other changes in the Provincial Decision principles of note. First,
in Principle 2, BC clarifies that not only are the benefits of the Treaty currently
“primarily” the Canadian Entitlement, but in fact the Canadian Entitlement the sole
benefit of the Treaty. Second, in a discussion of US benefits of the Treaty, the BC
Provincial Decision expands upon what water supply benefits the Province feels should
be accounted for in determining benefit sharing under the Treaty. In Principle 3, The
Province notes that water supply benefits include municipal, industrial, and agricultural
uses. These two revisions seem to serve to strengthen the BC position on how the two
countries benefit from the Treaty and its argument why the Canadian Entitlement should
not be reduced. A third revision in the BC Provincial Decision is the inclusion of
language noting that the US must pay Canada for Called Upon operations. This is not a
new concept or a new belief of BC, as the requirement for compensation for Called Upon
comes directly from the Treaty itself. The new language simply addresses an omission in
the draft. A final substantive change in the language comes in Principle 11, where the
Province states that salmon migration “is currently not a Treaty issue” (emphasis added)
and that BC’s view is that “management of anadromous salmon populations is the
responsibility of the Government of Canada.” In the previous version of the document,
Principle 11 stated that salmon migration “is not” a Treaty issue and did not make
mention of the Government of Canada’s role in managing anadromous species. In
addition to these changes, there were a few clarifying and grammar edits. I include a
discussion of what influenced these changes in the text of the document in the “Case
Study Discussion” portion of this chapter.
126
5.3 Water GPA Results
In this section of the chapter, I present my findings from my application of the
Water Governance Process Assessment (Water GPA) to the BC CRT Review. First, I
summarize who participated in the study. Second, I report the survey results, highlighting
the scores participants gave the categories of the process (accountability, information,
and inclusivity) and the scores for the BC Provincial Decision itself. Next, I list the
byproducts the study participants identified as having emerged, increased, or decreased as
a result of the review process. Finally, I describe the findings from analysis of the semistructured interviews focusing on: 1) analysis of context (as that was not included in the
survey), and2) lessons learned from the Review. I further discuss the Water GPA results
and their implications, from the surveys and interviews, in the following section titled,
“Discussion.”
5.3.1 Study Participants
I interviewed sixteen participants of the BC CRT Review, fourteen of which
completed the survey evaluation portion of the study (Table 39). An additional four
participants of the review took the survey, but did not participate in an interview. I
interviewed and surveyed a variety of BC CRT Review participants who engaged in
different parts of the process in order to capture a complete picture of the process (Table
40). Different participants joined the review at various points in the process (Table 41).
All those who completed the survey were involved with the BC CRT Review when the
Province released the BC Provincial Decision on March 13, 2014 and many are still
engaged in Treaty issues today. In both the interview and survey, participants shared their
views of the four framework process categories and outcomes of the Water Governance
127
Process Assessment (Water GPA). I also asked if there was anything else they would like
to share about the BC CRT Review for inclusion in my study.
Table 39. Stratified quota sampling strategy for the BC CRT Review case study
Number of
Number of
Category
Affiliations
Participants Participants
(Interviews)
(Surveys)
 Natural Resources Canada
Federal
2
2
 Environment Canada
Government
 Fisheries and Oceans Canada
First Nations




Ktunaxa Nation
Okanagan Nation
Secwepemc Nation (Neskonlith Band)
Sinixt
2
1
Provincial
Government
 BC Ministry of Energy and Mines (Lead
Agency)
 BC Hydro
 Ministry of Forests, Lands and Natural
Resource Operations
 Ministry of Environment
5
5
Local
Government
 Members of Local Government Committee
2
2
 BC CRT Review Sounding Board Members
5
8
 Other citizens
Total
16
18
This table includes a breakdown of interviewees and survey respondents by affiliation. I identified
potential participants using LGC, Sounding Board, and committee rosters, as well as other
comments shared publicly during the BC CRT Review.
Stakeholders
Table 40. Type of interviewee involvement in the BC CRT Review
Number of Participants Number of Participants
Type of Involvement
(Interviews)
(Surveys)
Lead agency
2
2
First Nation consultation
3
1
Sounding Board
3
3
Local Governments Committee
2
2
Technical Committees
3
3
Stakeholder engagement
5
9
This table identifies the number of survey respondents and interviewees engaged in different
components of the BC CRT Review.
128
Table 41. When participants joined the BC CRT Review
Number of Participants
Number of Participants
When Participant Joined Review
(Interviews)
(Surveys)
5
Pre-Phase 2
4
12
Start of Phase 2 (Fall 2011)
8
3
2012
2
6
2013
6
18
Total
16
This table lists when different study participants joined the BC CRT Review.
5.3.2 Methodology Overview
The semi-structured interviews lasted between 20 minutes and 2 hours, depending
on participant availability. The average length of interviews was just under an hour.
During the interviews, I asked participants to explain or provide examples for select
survey responses in order to compile a richer assessment of the process categories and
outcomes. I also asked them in what ways each of the process categories impacted the
content of the decision (or their view of it) as well as if there were any other factors that
they believe influenced the outcomes of the decision making process. I recorded the
interviews using a digital voice recorder then transcribed them into a text document for
analysis. I coded and analyzed the transcribed interviews qualitatively using the Water
Governance Process Assessment categories and the QSR NVivo software.
In the survey, I asked participants to score the degree to which they agreed or
disagreed with statements for various aspects of the process characteristics: information,
accountability, and inclusivity. Participants scored the statements on a Likert scale of one
(strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree). Each statement represents one aspect or
criteria of those three process characteristics identified by the Water Governance Process
Assessment (Water GPA). Participants also scored the degree to which they agreed or
disagreed with statements about the review decision, in this case the BC Provincial
Decision. I compiled the paper survey responses into an electronic spreadsheet for
129
analysis. I provide a more detailed explanation of my methods in Chapter 3. Below I
present the mean scores for all 18 survey respondents as well as counts of the positive
(agree and strongly agree), negative (disagree and strongly disagree) and neutral scores to
show the distribution of the scores. If apparent, I point out trends in the responses.
5.3.3 Accountability
In the Water GPA, I define accountability as “the organization and atmosphere of
the process designed to produce a legitimate decision.” Accountability includes concepts
such as transparency, fairness, rule of law, leadership, responsiveness, the scope of the
decision making process, who holds decision authority etc.
Survey Results
For all measures of accountability, at least half of those who completed the survey
rated the BC CRT Review favorably (Table 42). All survey respondents agreed that the
review followed the appropriate laws and 15 (of 17) respondents agreed that the review
fulfilled its legal obligations. For two aspects of accountability, decision criteria and
decision authority, almost a third of respondents (5 out of 18) disagreed that review
clearly explained how it would make a decision and how it would share its authority with
the review participants.
130
Table 42. BC CRT Review accountability scores
Category
The review was sufficiently transparent
The review tasks/objectives were clearly
specified
Mean
4.03
Distribution of Responses
Disagree Neutral
Agree
2
1
14
Total
17
4.03
1
4
12
17
Criteria used for how decisions would be
made were clearly specified
3.56
5
4
9
18
The degree to which decision authority would
be shared was clear
3.65
5
2
10
17
To the best of your knowledge, the review
followed the appropriate laws
4.44
0
0
18
18
4.29
1
1
15
17
3.94
1
5
11
17
3.94
2
3
13
18
To the best of your knowledge, the review
fulfilled its legal obligations
The review was procedurally fair/just
Representatives of the public and interest
groups represented their constituents’
interests appropriately
The lead agency of the Treaty review was
4.12
1
3
13
17
responsive to review participants
Table 42 presents the mean scores and response counts for the survey questions about the
quality of accountability in the BC CRT Review. Survey participants marked whether they strongly
disagreed (assigned value = 1), disagreed (assigned value = 2), were neutral (assigned value =
3), agreed (assigned value = 4), or strongly agreed (assigned value = 5) with each statement. A
higher mean score indicates higher overall agreement with the statement. I combined the
“strongly disagreed” and “disagreed” as well as the “strongly agreed” and “agreed” counts.
To investigate who felt the decision criteria and degree of shared decision
authority, I separated the responses into two groups, stakeholders engaged through the
public consultation process and government officials (Table 43 and Table 44). For both
measures of accountability, more stakeholders disagreed that the BC CRT Review clearly
shared its intent in those areas. Overall, government officials scored accountability higher
than stakeholders, whose scores were more varied (Table 43 and Table 44).
131
Table 43. Sovereign participant accountability scores for the BC CRT Review
Distribution of Responses
Category
Mean
Disagree Neutral
Agree
The review was sufficiently transparent
4.50
0
0
8
The review tasks/objectives were clearly
4.50
0
0
8
specified
Total
8
8
Criteria used for how decisions would be
made were clearly specified
4.00
1
2
6
9
The degree to which decision authority would
be shared was clear
4.50
1
0
7
8
4.78
0
0
9
9
4.88
0
0
8
8
The review was procedurally fair/just
4.44
0
1
8
9
Representatives of the public and interest
groups represented their constituents’
interests appropriately
4.44
0
1
8
9
To the best of your knowledge, the review
followed the appropriate laws
To the best of your knowledge, the review
fulfilled its legal obligations
The lead agency of the Treaty review was
4.56
0
1
8
9
responsive to review participants
This table presents the mean scores and response counts for SOVEREIGN participants in the BC
CRT Review on the topic of accountability. Survey participants marked whether they strongly
disagreed (assigned value = 1), disagreed (assigned value = 2), were neutral (assigned value =
3), agreed (assigned value = 4), or strongly agreed (assigned value = 5) with each statement. A
higher mean score indicates higher overall agreement with the statement. I compiled the “strongly
disagreed” and “disagreed” as well as the “strongly agreed” and “agreed” counts.
132
Table 44. Stakeholder participant accountability scores for the BC CRT Review
Distribution of Responses
Category
Mean
Disagree Neutral
Agree
The review was sufficiently transparent
3.56
2
1
6
The review tasks/objectives were clearly
3.56
1
4
4
specified
Total
9
9
Criteria used for how decisions would be
made were clearly specified
3.11
4
2
3
9
The degree to which decision authority would
be shared was clear
2.89
4
2
3
9
4.11
0
0
9
9
3.78
1
1
7
9
The review was procedurally fair/just
3.38
1
4
3
8
Representatives of the public and interest
groups represented their constituents’
interests appropriately
3.44
2
2
5
9
To the best of your knowledge, the review
followed the appropriate laws
To the best of your knowledge, the review
fulfilled its legal obligations
The lead agency of the Treaty review was
3.63
1
2
5
8
responsive to review participants
This table presents the mean scores and response counts for STAKEHOLDER participants in the
BC CRT Review on the topic of accountability. Survey participants marked whether they strongly
disagreed (assigned value = 1), disagreed (assigned value = 2), were neutral (assigned value =
3), agreed (assigned value = 4), or strongly agreed (assigned value = 5) with each statement. A
higher mean score indicates higher overall agreement with the statement. I compiled the “strongly
disagreed” and “disagreed” as well as the “strongly agreed” and “agreed” counts.
Transparency
During the interviews, I asked participants about the degree of transparency in the
process and whether the process was sufficiently transparent. Responses generally feel
into two categories. First, several participants felt that the public consultation process was
very transparent. On the other hand a few participants felt that the technical aspects of the
review (e.g., technical studies) and what would happen after BC issued its Provincial
Decision were less transparent. One member of the Sounding Board shared:
We were told [that] our [the BC CRT Review Team] job is to collect your
input. We are going to give it to the government and we have no idea what
they are going to do with it. It was pretty clear, but it was also pretty
fuzzy. They were very open with us that they didn't know and that the
government representatives we were working with weren't the ones who
were making the decision. In fact the government that is currently in
133
office, is not the government that will be in charge in 2024. So they were
very transparent about 'who knows. - Sounding Board Member
This quote encapsulates a feeling shared by a few participants in the BC CRT Review.
They felt that the Review team did its best to be open and honest during the review
process, but in some ways the participants felt that transparency was limited because the
actual decision by the Province and then federal Canada was made and moving forward,
will be made in a black box. This tied in with concerns or confusion about decision
criteria and the sharing of decision authority, which I discuss in the next subsection.
Decision criteria
I saw two themes in what participants thought about the BC CRT Review
decision criteria. First, is that several participants did not know what the criteria were.
They knew the BC CRT Review team collected their input but were unsure what the
Province would base its decision on. One of the BC CRT Review Team members
explained that because the decision rested with Cabinet, those deliberations within
Cabinet were confidential and the team could not share the decision criteria. Related to
this, some individuals wanted more clarity on how BC and Canada would use the
information gathered during the consultation process would be used in the decision on the
future of the Treaty. Others thought the vague nature of the decision criteria was
acceptable. One member of the Local Governments’ Committee said:
I think in terms of them informing us as to how they would use our
information, at the beginning of the process, I don't think that was clearly
laid out--and that was okay because we really didn't know what we were
going to discover. -LGC member
134
Sharing of decision authority
In general, participants acknowledged that this was a consultation process, not a
collaborative process or one seeking consensus, and as such, the Province held the
decision authority. Mirroring interviewee thoughts on the decision criteria, participants’
perceptions of how decision authority would be shared fell into two camps: 1) an
understanding that the Province was the sole decision maker and was not sharing any
authority and 2) uncertainty as to how much the Province would adopt the views of the
basin. Bridging these two camps, one Sounding Board member said, “It was pretty clear
that none of us got the decision making authority, but how much our feedback would
influence it [the decision] was also not clear.”
With this set up, a few participants specifically voiced fears about the views of the
residents of the BC portion of basin the being ignored or over-ruled by the rest of BC or
Canada. Others expressed concern that the Provincial Cabinet would not listen to or
consider the views of the basin. Another Sounding Board member shared:
We have a provincial Cabinet, and they will end up making the decision,
and whether the appointee effectively is able to represent our wants or
their wants is in dispute. I hope that works for you because many of us get
the sense that it doesn’t matter what we say. Cabinet’s going to do
whatever they want anyway. - Sounding Board member
The two First Nations representatives I spoke with had negative views on how
decision authority was allocated and shared. They disagreed with the Province leading
the review rather than the federal government of Canada. They also believe that, as
sovereigns, they should share authority in making the decision that will affect their lands
and resources. They felt the Province did not properly include their views in the decision
135
and entered the process with a predetermined decision. One First Nation representative
said:
We challenge that because you can't do that without First Nations
involvement because of the constitutional rights and the increasing
recognition of the First Nations title rights over those same areas of
decision-making. Basically, the First Nations have a role in that process
and if you haven't included them then you're not legitimate. - First Nation
representative
Scope
The central decision of the BC CRT Review was to decide what BC should
recommend Canada do with the CRT post-2024. More specifically should it recommend
termination, modification, or continuation of the Treaty post-2024? Technically, issues
not related to this decision about the Treaty should be considered out of scope by the BC
CRT Review. The BC CRT Review Team took an interesting approach to this issue. A
BC CRT Review Team member explained:
When we started the [BC CRT Review] team here from Victoria, some
said, “We will need to have a list of the issues we can consider under the
Columbia River Treaty and what would be out of scope.” And I said,
“Don't ever go into a community in the Kootenays and say something is
out-of-scope. That is not going to work.” So we had a parking lot--I think
we had 54 pages of issues that were outside of the Treaty that we
committed to coming back to and seeing within government seeing how
they could be addressed so those weren't out-of-scope, even though they
weren't necessarily Treaty-related. - BC CRT Review Team member
Those involved in the public engagement process that I interviewed seemed satisfied with
this approach. In their comments, they shared that this satisfaction was tied to the fact
that those ‘parking lot’ items were not immediately dropped when the BC CRT Review
process ended. Rather the Columbia Basin Trust, LGC, and the Province, through the
formation of the Columbia Basin Regional Advisory Committee, picked up a number of
the issues to begin trying to address them. The BC Ministry of Energy and Mines also let
136
participants of the review determine what was or was not Treaty-related. With guidance
from the BC CRT Review Team, the Sounding Board completed an exercise where they
reviewed 96 actions to determine which were Treaty-related and were domestic issues
that the Province or Federal Canada could address within their own borders.
This is not to say that all interviewees felt the Treaty review process had the
appropriate scope. A few participants felt the BC Ministry of Energy and Mines view of
what fell within the scope of the review was too limited, either at the outset or throughout
the whole process. One technical committee member recognized the challenge BC had in
determining what was in and out of scope, but offered:
If you have BC's hat on, you are planning out what is important and not
important and if there is something another agency feels you may have
missed then there may be some hesitancy to engage on that. But at the
same point there is at least a place for that discussion to happen,
for points to be made and considered by BC. So there may be some areas
on the environment side or climate change side where BC might not have
been considering issues in their initial assessment of what is important or
not important for the review but then over time there is a chance for
groups or agencies to get why things are important. - Technical Committee
member
Leadership
In my examination of the transcripts, I initially focused on how responsive the
review lead (the BC Ministry of Energy and Mines in this case study) was to participants.
However, as I coded the text, I also found that participants also wanted to share thoughts
on who Canada chose to lead the review. Therefore I discuss both in this section.
With only a couple of exceptions, most participants felt the BC CRT Review
Team was very responsive to those participating in the Treaty review process. One
example of how the Ministry of Energy and Mines team responded to process
participants was how they consulted the public in their development of the public
137
engagement process. This is seen in a story of how the BC CRT Review Team adapted
and responded to the needs of one community:
When we chose dates [for community meetings] we would ask the Local
Governments Committee if is there anything happening in your
communities our meeting would not conflict [with anything]. We chose
the days and advertised everything for the last set of meetings. Well in
Nakusp there was this piano recital so a lot people in the evening couldn't
come. So we said, “Okay, what would you like us to do?” So they said,
“Well we would like you to have one in the afternoon and one in the
evening.” And I went, ugh, because it can be exhausting because you are
out there and you are sincere. It takes energy to react and explain and to
respond. But we did. And in the little community of Nakusp we basically
got almost 200 people to attend between the two sessions in a population
of 1000. And there were some people from outlying communities that
came as well. -BC CRT Review Team member
The review team also responded to participants’ requests for information. One member of
the Sounding Board member shared:
If questions were raised of staff, there was always the ability, to for them
[the staff member] to say, ”We don't have the answer to that but we will
go and find out. We will then get back to you.” That happened quite often.
-Sounding Board member
It was not that the Ministry of Energy and Mines did everything that participants wanted
or agreed with all opinions shared. Rather participants commented on how if the BC CRT
Review Team disagreed with a participant request it would explain why it would not act
on that request. So at the end of the day, all parties might not agree on what studies were
done or what the BC Provincial Decision said, but they respected each other. A LGC
member commented:
I would say that there was a larger percentage of people that had a
renewed respect for a government process because of the government
team and how they handled things and how they got back [to us]. You
may not always get what you want, but at least you recognize that they
cared and that they were trying their best for you. - LGC member
138
I heard different opinions about whether the right organization was put in charge
of the review. Some felt that the BC Ministry of Energy and Mines was appropriate
because: 1) the review process should be at the Provincial level and/or 2) the Ministry of
Energy and Mines is the parent organization of BC Hydro (the Canadian Entity) and has
greater capacity to complete the review. Others felt a different organization should lead
the review. First Nations representatives thought it should led by someone at the federal
level. Another participant wondered if the review should be done through the Columbia
River Treaty itself (i.e., via the IJC and dispute resolution protocols laid out in the Treaty)
to avoid having the two nations become positional through separate review processes.
Another interviewee thought that the Ministry of Energy of Mines was not the
appropriate process lead because of its biases towards natural resource extraction and
continuing or modifying the current Treaty operations to maintain power generation.
Accountability to constituents
In their discussions about accountability, very few participants talked about
whether different stakeholders or elected officials were accountable to their constituents.
The couple that did simply shared that they felt the LGC members represented their
constituents fairly.
Rule of law
In terms of rule of law I found two themes. First, was there was no legal
provincial requirement for the Province to consult with members of the public in their
review of the Treaty. Participants were appreciative that the Ministry of Energy and
Mines still conducted an extensive engagement process even though one was not legally
required.
139
The second theme focused on the role of the BC the legal obligation for both the
Province and the federal government of Canada to consult with First Nations. As I
discuss more under “Context,” the Province of BC led Canada’s review of the Treaty
because of the BC-Canada Agreement of 1963 which delegated the management
authorities and responsibilities as well as the benefits of the CRT to the Province. The BC
CRT Review team consulted each First Nation or Band separately with a representative
of the federal government of Canada present as an observer. The First Nations
interviewees did not view this as appropriate and felt that the federal government of
Canada failed to meet its federal obligation to consult. In talking about whether the
Province followed the rule of law and fulfilled its duty to consult with First Nations, I
heard conflicting viewpoints. One First Nation representative shared:
First of all, there isn't a really a good process in place. The consultation is
very minimal and it's not adequate and it doesn't meet our recognition of
our titled rights, which they always sidestep in the process. - First Nation
Chief
A different First Nation appreciated the ability to design its own consultation process
which s/he described as a critical path process with trilateral engagement of the First
Nation, federal government, and provincial government. S/he felt that process was a step
towards acceptable First Nation consultation. The provincial and federal government
representatives involved in the First Nation consultation felt they met their legal
obligations. One person shared:
We had policies on how we would meaningfully engage and consult First
Nations. We were provided with--we had actually a dedicated legal
counsel on aboriginal law to ensure that we were meeting our duty to
consult the First Nations. - Government representative
140
Other emergent subthemes of accountability
One emergent theme I discovered while coding was how frequently BC review
participants spoke directly about the Executive Director of the BC CRT Review Team,
and made a distinction between her and her team versus the Ministry of Energy and
Mines or the Province. They expressed confidence in the Executive Director and her
staff, but remained skeptical of how the Ministry of Energy and Mines and the Provincial
government would act in the future. Some participants mentioned other individual’s
names from groups like the LGC or Columbia Basin Trust (CBT), but not at the same
frequency as the Executive Director. In most other cases, participants referred to someone
by their affiliation. For example, they would talk about BC Hydro or the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans. Based on my observations, I can think of two possible explanations
for this. One is that the Executive Director personally had a large impact on the process.
More specifically her personality, history with the basin (she used to live in the region),
strengths as a leader, and approach were well-received by BC CRT Review participants.
A second possible explanation is that my interviewees were aware that I knew the
Executive Director from my involvement in the CRT reviews and so they felt
comfortable referring to her by name. I favor the first explanation based on what some
participants said about her. For example, when talking about what about the process went
well one citizen shared:
Well I think it is having strong facilitated and knowledgeable individuals
leading like [the BC CRT Review Team Executive Director]. Seeing
capable people with basic social leadership say, "I want to hear what
everybody has to say. I have strong opinions myself, but I am willing to
listen and incorporate into something going forward." I think that is what
has to happen…The leadership makes a huge difference in the success.
Don't put weak capacity in as the leaders of those sessions because you
will get nowhere and you will make no progress. -BC citizen
141
5.3.4 Information
Information and knowledge includes the data, information and knowledge used to
make the decision, including all stages of collection, modeling, experiments, and
analysis. Survey respondents rated information in terms of quality (i.e., was the
information appropriate and adequate for the decision being made) and access (was the
information available and understandable). Survey respondents generally agreed that the
BC CRT Review used the appropriate information, conducted the right technical studies,
and made that information available in an audience appropriate format (Table 45). A
majority of government officials and agency staffers agreed that review collected, used,
and shared the right information (Table 47). Seven of nine government officials felt that
the information produced in the review was adequate for the decision. Stakeholder views
were more varied with three (of 9) disagreeing and five agreeing that the information was
adequate (Table 46). The semi-structured interviews provide further insight into the
participants views of information produced and used in the BC CRT Review. I discuss
those next, highlighting what participants had to say about the quality of information
produced and used in the review, information sharing, whether information shared was
audience appropriate, and whether it was made available in a timely manner.
142
Table 45. BC CRT Review information scores
Category
The review utilized the appropriate existing
information (studies, knowledge, etc.)
The appropriate technical studies were
conducted
Information was made available in a timely
manner
Mean
Distribution of Responses
Disagree Neutral
Agree
Total
4.00
1
2
15
18
3.61
4
3
11
18
3.92
1
4
12
17
Information made available was easily
3.53
4
2
11
17
understood
Information shared was audience appropriate
(e.g., matched the level of technical
3.78
1
4
13
18
understanding)
Information produced in the review was
adequate (i.e., appropriate for the decision
3.78
3
3
12
18
being made)
This table presents the mean scores and response counts for all survey participants in the BC
CRT Review on the topic of information. Survey participants marked whether they strongly
disagreed (assigned value = 1), disagreed (assigned value = 2), were neutral (assigned value =
3), agreed (assigned value = 4), or strongly agreed (assigned value = 5) with each statement. A
higher mean score indicates higher overall agreement with the statement. I compiled the “strongly
disagreed” and “disagreed” as well as the “strongly agreed” and “agreed” counts instead of
reporting them in separate columns.
Table 46. BC CRT Review stakeholder information scores
Distribution of Responses
Category
Mean
Disagree Neutral
Agree
The review utilized the appropriate existing
3.67
1
1
7
information (studies, knowledge, etc.)
The appropriate technical studies were
3.00
4
1
4
conducted
Information was made available in a timely
manner
3.50
1
3
4
Total
9
9
8
Information made available was easily
3.11
3
2
4
9
understood
Information shared was audience appropriate
(e.g., matched the level of technical
3.44
1
3
5
9
understanding)
Information produced in the review was
adequate (i.e., appropriate for the decision
3.22
3
1
5
9
being made)
This table presents the mean scores and response counts for STAKEHOLDER survey
participants in the BC CRT Review on the topic of information. Survey participants marked
whether they strongly disagreed (assigned value = 1), disagreed (assigned value = 2), were
neutral (assigned value = 3), agreed (assigned value = 4), or strongly agreed (assigned value =
5) with each statement. A higher mean score indicates higher overall agreement with the
statement. I compiled the “strongly disagreed” and “disagreed” as well as the “strongly agreed”
and “agreed” counts instead of reporting them in separate columns.
143
Table 47. BC CRT Review government official information scores
Distribution of Responses
Category
Mean
Disagree Neutral
Agree
The review utilized the appropriate existing
4.33
0
1
8
information (studies, knowledge, etc.)
The appropriate technical studies were
4.22
0
2
7
conducted
Information was made available in a timely
4.33
0
1
8
manner
Total
9
9
9
Information made available was easily
3.94
1
0
7
8
understood
Information shared was audience appropriate
(e.g., matched the level of technical
4.11
0
1
8
9
understanding)
Information produced in the review was
adequate (i.e., appropriate for the decision
4.33
0
2
7
9
being made)
This table presents the mean scores and response counts for SOVEREIGN survey participants
(government officials) in the BC CRT Review on the topic of information. Survey participants
marked whether they strongly disagreed (assigned value = 1), disagreed (assigned value = 2),
were neutral (assigned value = 3), agreed (assigned value = 4), or strongly agreed (assigned
value = 5) with each statement. A higher mean score indicates higher overall agreement with the
statement. I compiled the “strongly disagreed” and “disagreed” as well as the “strongly agreed”
and “agreed” counts instead of reporting them in separate columns.
Information quality
Information quality refers to collecting the appropriate information and
completing the appropriate studies so that a decision can be informed by comprehensive
and accurate data and information. In their comments about information quality, study
participants talked about instances where they thought the quality of information
collected and use was high as well as areas where they thought better information or
additional information should have been gathered.
One area where a number of participants thought the BC CRT Review did an
excellent job in collecting information was in the public consultation process. Participants
felt that the BC CRT Review Team gathered and used community input and, as a result,
had a better Provincial Decision. One member of the LGC said, “I think they [the
Province] are far better prepared with what they learned from us than what they would
144
have been if they would not have consulted the region.” A member of the BC CRT
Review Team commented:
I think what the information gathering did was to educate the people that if
there is going to be a negotiation, we have so much information that we’ve
got from local residents about where their lines in the sand are. - BC CRT
Review Team member
Other participants were also impressed with the scope of the technical studies
conducted during the review and the willingness of the BC CRT Review Team to conduct
the different technical analyses that communities requested (which I discuss further in the
section on inclusivity and the ability of groups to influence technical studies). One
member of a technical committee also commented on how the review allowed them to
improve their existing technical models and expand their model to the entire Columbia
River System and to the mouth of the river. Others felt that while more work would be
needed in the future, the BC CRT Review conducted the right studies and gathered
adequate information for the BC Provincial Decision. One government agency
representative said:
I think the Province did a fairly extensive and intensive effort to gather the
right kind of information in evaluating the value of the Treaty and the
future of the Treaty for power generation and flood protection.-Technical
Committee member
A few technical committee members and a few stakeholders felt that additional
studies would have benefited the decision making process and region. One area where a
few participants wanted additional investigation was on various environmental impacts
including how climate change will impact the region and Treaty operations. A committee
member commented:
145
They [the BC CRT Review Team and committees] did a great job in
evaluating pros and cons of different scenarios, and broader
socioeconomic issues. They considered the benefits to the Province, not
only in terms of revenue but to the region in terms of managing flood risk
and the sort of socio-economic benefits. But when it came to climate
change, it's not clear that they saw it as important to their decision on the
future of the Treaty. They understand that it can impact operational
decisions, or it will down the road. But I think their position was that with
or without a Treaty the system is going to have to deal with climate
change impacts, so it may not be that central to the Treaty itself. I thought
that assessing the system with a climate change evaluation approach might
influence how the value of the Treaty seen. -Technical Committee
member
A second criticism from the two First Nations representatives was that the
information for their “Preliminary Assessments” for assessing the strength of their claim
and voice in the decision was insufficient. One First Nation representative disagreed with
the Province only taking a scientific approach and not considering the traditional
ecological knowledge (TEK) of the First Nations when examining the impacts of
different river operation scenarios. S/he said:
So we found that when we reviewed these materials [the proposed
technical committees’ work], not only the types of people they'd invited
but the terms and the subject matter and how they framed the subject
matter was basically against the indigenous interests…Rather than [adopt]
the more challenging approaches of the First Nations that talk about the
integration of species, the integration of impacts, the important world view
of the holistic perspectives and cumulative impacts and that sort of
thing…It's a lot easier when you look at things in isolation, say, "Will X
impact on sturgeon in this way when we ask this question?" No. "Okay,
then it's all good." The reality is maybe not at all. Maybe it didn't affect
their ability to eat kokanee but it may have undermined the ability to get
the nutrients they need to survive because it's impacted another species or
something. - First Nations representative
A third critique was that the BC CRT Review did not take advantage of the
review as an opportunity to think about the bigger picture and more outside of the box in
terms of what technical studies to conduct. These three participants thought that the
146
Province should have used the review to envision a brighter future and investigate more
progressive ways that may get the basin there. One member of the Sounding Board
shared, “I think that we missed an opportunity for new ways of thinking.”
A final critique was using information and data from the Water Use Planning
process. Some people were glad that Water Use Planning information was available due
to the relatively recent Water Use Plans for the Columbia River System and Duncan
Dam. Those individuals were glad for the existing information to build upon during the
Treaty review. Others were concerned about using that information because assumptions
about Columbia River Treaty operations are built into those prior technical studies. These
individuals argued that if you are trying to examine the impacts of a “Treaty terminates”
scenario it does not make sense to include information based on ongoing Treaty
operations.
In addition to wishing for different or additional studies, some participants also
recognized it was not feasible to complete some of what they thought should be studied
in the timeframe of the Treaty review. Therefore, they hoped that the Province and others
would continue doing technical analyses to better understand the river ecosystem and
develop additional scenarios to consider in future Treaty negotiations and operations.
Information sharing
To capture the degree of information sharing survey respondents answered a
question where they selected the category that best described the degree of information
sharing between them and the BC Ministry of Energy and Mines. Adapted from the
construct scale developed by Glen Hearns (2010), the scale ranges from no exchange of
information to an extensive, regular exchange of information on a wide variety of topics
147
(Table 48). Each category is defined in terms of the timing, method, and content of
information shared. Several respondents found the scale confusing as they did not
understand what some of the indicators meant. For example, they asked “what is the
difference between a regular or irregular exchange of information?” To clarify I shared
brief definitions of the terms verbally (Of the government officials I surveyed, most rated
information sharing between them and the lead agency as a “10” meaning there was
“extensive and regular exchange, joint information gathering and/or processing, socioeconomic-environmental, policy and planning information” (Table 48). The three other
individuals rated information sharing as a 7, 8, and 9 (Table 48). The information sharing
reported by stakeholders ranged from 2 to 10 (Table 48).
Table 49).
148
Table 48. BC CRT Review information sharing scores
Scale
Indicators (timing/method/content)
1
Number of
Participants
Number of
Government
Officials
0
Number of
Stakeholders
No exchange of information
0
0
Irregular release of information; informal
2
exchange (e.g., through release of
1
0
1
reports or journal articles)
Irregular but formal exchange of
3
information that is limited, disputed or
1
0
1
questioned
Irregular but formal exchange of limited
4
0
0
0
information, validity accepted
Regular formal exchange, only one topic
5
1
0
1
included, validity accepted or disputed
Regular exchange, multiple topics
6
related to water included, validity
0
0
0
accepted
Regular exchange, joint gathering
7
and/or processing, only one topic
3
1
2
included
Regular exchange, joint gathering
8
and/or processing, multiple water issues
1
1
0
included
Regular exchange, joint gathering
and/or processing, multiple water issues
9
included, including socio-economic and
4
1
3
environmental issues exchanged or
discussed
Extensive and regular exchange, joint
information gathering and/or processing,
10
7
6
1
socio-economic-environmental, policy
and planning information
Blank No response
0
0
0
Total
18
9
9
Table 48 displays how different survey participants reported the information sharing between
themselves and the process lead (Ministry of Energy and Mines). Generally, government
representatives reported higher degrees of information sharing than stakeholder participants.
Of the government officials I surveyed, most rated information sharing between
them and the lead agency as a “10” meaning there was “extensive and regular exchange,
joint information gathering and/or processing, socio-economic-environmental, policy and
planning information” (Table 48). The three other individuals rated information sharing
as a 7, 8, and 9 (Table 48). The information sharing reported by stakeholders ranged from
2 to 10 (Table 48).
149
Table 49. Information sharing construct scale term definitions
Scale term
Definition
Information is shared periodically at seemingly random intervals,
Irregular exchange
without any assurance that information will continue to be shared in the
future
Information is shared at agreed upon points of the process (e.g., so
Regular exchange
many times a year, after each iteration of technical studies, etc.)
Informal exchange
Information is shared through back channels or information is released
to the public where the party then accesses it (i.e., indirect access)
Formal exchange
Information is directly shared as part of the official process
Validity disputed or
questioned
Information shared is not accepted as accurate or appropriate for
answering the question at hand
Information is accepted as valid (accurate or appropriate for answering
Validity accepted
the question at hand)
Table 78 shares definitions of different terms used in the information sharing scale. I shared these
definitions with survey participants when they asked for clarification.
Those that I interviewed largely had positive views of the degree of information
sharing in the BC CRT Review. The study participants involved in the public
consultation process were particularly grateful for the access they had to information
produced during the review as well as the ability to contribute information and
perspectives to the review process. When I asked about information sharing, one citizen
shared: “Oh it was great, [information sharing] was absolutely fantastic. We were not left
out of the loop in any aspect what-so-ever; it was the voice of the people being heard.” A
couple of survey respondents were more critical and did not feel the process adequately
shared information with the public.
Members of the two technical committees also appreciated the opportunity to
access and review the technical studies conducted in the review. They enjoyed working
with other agencies. However, a couple of individuals talked about how information
sharing was predominantly one way with the BC CRT Review Team and their
consultants completing the technical work and simply asking for other agency review.
150
Those committee members hoped to have greater input on determining what was studied
(which I discuss further in “ability to influence policy and technical issues”).
The two First Nations I spoke with were more critical of the information sharing
between the Province and their Nation. One First Nation representative shared:
I don't think we got the full information. They had some technical working
tables where they provided the technical information, but what we found
useful was there was a consortium, some sort of big meeting down in one
of the colleges or the universities we were invited to. They provided us
probably more information than the government did on the Columbia
River. -First Nation representative
Audience appropriate and understandable
A number of participants involved in the public consultation process talked about
whether the information produced and shared was audience appropriate (i.e., it matched
the level of technical understanding of those receiving the information). Most mentioned
that this aspect of information sharing improved over time. Some early presentations by
technical experts were overly technical for a public audience and so the review tried to
address that problem. As the review process progressed, the technical experts improved
their ability to communicate complex topics and the citizenry was more educated and
able to understand the technical information presented. One participant noted that helping
technical experts, such as engineers, communicate with the general public continues to be
an ongoing process in the basin.
Several participants also talked about the challenge of presenting information to a
wide audience and how often in the same room there were people who wanted more
detailed technical information and others who had no interest in it. One member of the
BC CRT Review Team asked:
151
What do you do when you have a third of the room say that it is still too
complicated, a third of the room say that's just fine, and a third of the room
say oh it's too general, vague or not technical enough." So what do you
do? - BC CRT Review Team member
To address this issue where different people wanted more or less technical information,
the BC CRT Review Team hosted a technical conference to provide interested parties
with the ability to dive a little deeper into the technical work done during the Treaty
review than what was shared at the public meetings.
Available in timely manner
When talking about the timing of the release of information, most interviewees
felt that the review made information available in a timely manner. However, a few
people mentioned that the BC CRT Review did not have enough time to complete a
number of studies that would better prepare it for potential negotiations and enable the
basin to better manage the system. They wished the review process started sooner in
order to do more in depth modeling, impact studies, and scenario development.
5.3.5 Inclusivity
Inclusivity can be defined as how interested and effected parties are involved in
various stages of the decision making process, both in terms of degree and quality, in
order to have meaningful engagement of those parties. In the following subsections I first
discuss the survey results and then present the results of my analysis of the semistructured interviews on the Water GPA components of inclusivity: 1) representation, 2)
ability to influence, 3) resources to participate, and 4) timing of involvement.
Survey Results
In the survey questions about inclusivity, I asked respondents to share their views
of the inclusion of all parties as well as specific questions about how they or their
152
organization was included in the review process (Table 50). Two thirds or more of those
who responded to the survey questions on inclusivity agreed that interested and affected
parties had a venue for participating in the review, were adequately represented, had the
ability to affect the policy issues and technical studies, had the resources to participate,
and were given fair notice, time, and the invitation for early involvement (Table 50).
Table 50. BC CRT Review inclusivity scores
Category
Interested and affected parties had a venue
for participating the Treaty review
Interested and affected parties were
adequately represented in the Treaty review
You (or your organization) were adequately
represented in the Treaty review
Mean
Distribution of Responses
Disagree Neutral
Agree
Total
4.42
1
0
16
17
3.74
2
2
10
14
4.03
1
3
13
17
You (or your organization) had the ability to
3.44
5
1
10
16
influence the Treaty review on policy issues
You (or your organization) had the ability to
influence the Treaty review’s technical
3.83
3
1
12
16
studies
You (or your organization) had the resources
needed to participate (e.g., money,
3.67
4
2
10
16
personnel)
You (or your organization) were given the
4.22
1
3
14
18
opportunity for early involvement
Your (or your organization) were given fair
notice and time to be involved in the Treaty
4.08
3
0
14
17
review
This table presents the mean scores and response counts for ALL survey participants in the US
BC CRT Review on the topic of inclusivity. Survey participants marked whether they strongly
disagreed (assigned value = 1), disagreed (assigned value = 2), were neutral (assigned value =
3), agreed (assigned value = 4), or strongly agreed (assigned value = 5) with each statement. I
averaged the responses to calculate a mean score. A higher mean score indicates higher overall
agreement with the statement. I compiled the “strongly disagreed” and “disagreed” as well as the
“strongly agreed” and “agreed” counts instead of reporting them in separate columns.
When the scores are broken into the categories of stakeholders and government
officials, we see that almost all government officials rated those aspects of inclusivity
favorably (Table 51). However, stakeholder scores were much more evenly split with
close to half of the respondents indicating they did not have the ability to influence policy
153
issues or the review technical studies and they did not have the resources to participate
(Table 52).
Table 51. BC CRT Review sovereign inclusivity scores
Category
Mean
Distribution of Responses
Disagree Neutral
Agree
Total
Interested and affected parties had a venue
4.67
0
0
9
9
for participating the Treaty review
Interested and affected parties were
4.22
0
1
6
7
adequately represented in the Treaty review
You (or your organization) were adequately
4.44
0
2
7
9
represented in the Treaty review
You (or your organization) had the ability to
4.38
1
0
7
8
influence the Treaty review on policy issues
You (or your organization) had the ability to
influence the Treaty review’s technical
4.50
0
1
7
8
studies
You (or your organization) had the resources
needed to participate (e.g., money,
4.17
1
1
6
8
personnel)
You (or your organization) were given the
4.33
1
0
8
9
opportunity for early involvement
Your (or your organization) were given fair
notice and time to be involved in the Treaty
4.67
0
0
9
9
review
This table presents the mean scores and response counts for SOVEREIGN survey participants in
the BC CRT Review on the topic of inclusivity. Survey participants marked whether they strongly
disagreed (assigned value = 1), disagreed (assigned value = 2), were neutral (assigned value =
3), agreed (assigned value = 4), or strongly agreed (assigned value = 5) with each statement. I
averaged the responses to calculate a mean score. A higher mean score indicates higher overall
agreement with the statement. I combined “strongly disagreed” and “disagreed” as well as the
“strongly agreed” and “agreed” counts instead of reporting them in separate columns.
154
Table 52. BC CRT Review stakeholder inclusivity scores
Distribution of Responses
Category
Mean
Total
Disagree Neutral
Agree
Interested and affected parties had a venue
4.17
1
0
7
8
for participating the Treaty review
Interested and affected parties were
3.19
2
1
4
7
adequately represented in the Treaty review
You (or your organization) were adequately
3.61
1
1
6
8
represented in the Treaty review
You (or your organization) had the ability to
2.61
4
1
3
8
influence the Treaty review on policy issues
You (or your organization) had the ability to
influence the Treaty review’s technical
3.17
3
0
5
8
studies
You (or your organization) had the resources
needed to participate (e.g., money,
3.17
3
1
4
8
personnel)
You (or your organization) were given the
4.11
0
3
6
9
opportunity for early involvement
Your (or your organization) were given fair
notice and time to be involved in the Treaty
3.50
3
0
5
8
review
This table presents the mean scores and response counts for STAKEHOLDER survey
participants in the BC CRT Review on the topic of inclusivity. Survey participants marked whether
they strongly disagreed (assigned value = 1), disagreed (assigned value = 2), were neutral
(assigned value = 3), agreed (assigned value = 4), or strongly agreed (assigned value = 5) with
each statement. I averaged the responses to calculate a mean score. A higher mean score
indicates higher overall agreement with the statement. I compiled the “strongly disagreed” and
“disagreed” as well as the “strongly agreed” and “agreed” counts instead of reporting them in
separate columns.
Representation in the BC CRT Review
Representation of different interested and affected parties in the BC CRT Review
generally fell into three areas: 1) public consultation, 2) technical committees, and 3)
First Nation consultation. In this subsection, I share participant views of what worked
well or could have been improved in each of those three areas. Specifically I talk about
how groups were represented or included in the process. I address their ability to
influence policy and technical issues as well as whether they had the resources needed to
fully participate in the subsequent subsections.
155
As described above, public engagement involved a three-pronged approach
consisting of the Local Governments Committee (LGC), the Sounding Board, and public
outreach. Areas of public outreach that participants felt could use improvement centered
on trying to convince groups to participate. For example, the BC CRT Review Team
actively reached out to engage youth and had limited success. Likewise, the review
reached out to environmental groups and industry but those groups decided to not
actively engage in the process. However, several environmental groups formed a
coalition the transboundary Columbia River Treaty Roundtable and are actively engaged
with each other to identify and then move towards common goals. In terms of what
worked well, participants were appreciative that the BC CRT Review Team visited local
communities multiple times throughout the review to collect information, presenting
technical studies, and close the loop by sharing and explaining the BC Provincial
Decision. One citizen said: “Every aspect of the Review is in consideration of the public.
Everything. It's getting those views put on paper for consideration.”
Participants also appreciated that the Ministry of Energy and Mines asked community
members how they wanted to be engaged and then accepted those recommendations. For
example, communities asked for the review team to use social media, host a technical
conference, and form an advisory board of representatives from around the BC portion of
the basin. In response to this request, the BC CRT Review Team created the Sounding
Board which included representatives from different regions of the basin and different
stakeholder interests. Positive aspects of this approach included the fact that the group
allowed for broad representation of different views in the basin as well as the fact that the
156
members of the Sounding Board served as liaisons with their communities. In talking
about the make-up of the Sounding Board one member said:
It was probably about the right number [of people]. I also think that how
people were selected just in terms of the breadth and depth and the
different interests. It was really positive. People that were on the Sounding
Board, they are active in their communities in a variety of different ways
so I think they were able to bring that experience to the table. - Sounding
Board member
S/he also talked about how s/he was able to then take what s/he learned back to her/his
community to share what the Province said and get the community’s feedback. S/he said:
I had opportunities to go back to the different groups I've been involved
with and say ‘Ok, this is what was discussed, this is what people were
thinking, or what they were talking about. This is the direction we think
the Province might go. What do you think about that?’ It was good to get
that feedback. - Sounding Board member
Finally, two of the three Sounding Board members I spoke with felt it would have been
good for the group to meet more than a few times in order to be able to contribute more
to the review process.
The final piece of the public consultation process was the engagement of the
Local Governments Committee (LGC). The Province met with the local elected officials
from different communities around the basin to provide updates on the Treaty review as
well as gather input from the local governments. The members of the LGC also helped
host community meetings with the Province. Both members of the LGC had very positive
things to say about this method of representing communities in the review process. One
member of the LGC shared, “It's been a real gift to me, as a local politician. Local
politicians don't get to do this kind of stuff very often. It's been a very enriching
experience for me and I feel like our region has benefited.” Several other interviewees,
157
not involved in the LGC, also felt the interactions between the Ministry of Energy and
Mines and the LGC helped ensure representation of different views in the process.
Representation on technical committees consisted of provincial and federal
ministries, their consultants, and some First Nations. The BC Ministry of Energy and
Mines extended an invitation to those groups to participate on one or two of the technical
committees. Some First Nations chose not to participate on the technical committees
because their disagreed with the approach taken by the committees and did not want their
participation to serve as an endorsement of the committee reports/findings. The
committee members I interviewed generally thought that the right groups were invited to
participate on the committees. However, a few felt that one agency, the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans, was not as active as they should have been. A couple of individuals
also expressed concern that the committees were perhaps a little too focused on fisheries
issues at the expense of other components of the ecosystem.
Different groups had different opinions about how the BC CRT Review handled
representation of First Nations in the review process. Government representatives felt
they did their due diligence in consulting First Nations. The two representatives of First
Nations I interviewed had different views of First Nation consultation. One First Nation
negotiated with the Province to develop a critical path process with trilateral government
engagement (First Nation, Province, and Federal Government of Canada). S/he felt this
was a step in the right direction towards reconciliation. The other nation shared that s/he
had a more negative experience. The First Nation representative commented:
They were merely treating us like stakeholders and we're not stakeholders,
we're proper title holders and we're stewards of the land. We call it
caretakers of the land. I didn't agree with the Canadian government's
158
approach on that. If we were involved earlier in the discussions it would
be a nation-based approach, a government-to-government, nation-based
approach...the government approach should have been at a higher level.
-First Nation Chief
Other participants, specifically citizens/stakeholders and local officials, had mixed
views about the decision to separate out First Nation consultation from the rest of the
process. All participants recognized that, as sovereigns, First Nations had a right to
separate consultation and government-to-government engagement. However, members of
the public and locally elected officials wanted to hear First Nation perspectives, learn
more about First Nation views, and ensure that First Nation voices were adequately
represented. One member of the Sounding Board shared:
The First Nations and everybody else were kept strictly separate. I have no
idea how the First Nations felt, but it left us feeling like we only got half
the story. It didn't feel fair to me in a way because I feel like we didn't get
all of the information. -Sounding Board member
A number of individuals also commented on the exclusion of the Sinixt people from the
engagement of First Nations. Since Canada views the Sinixt people as extinct and does
not recognize them as a First Nation, they were not included in the First Nation
consultation process. Participants generally felt it was wrong to not consult the Sinixt
people.
Ability to influence policy and technical issues
With an understanding of how different groups participated in the BC CRT
Review, I now discuss how those groups felt about their ability to influence the policy
issues and technical studies BC CRT review. I mirror the structure above and talk about
the influence of those involved in the public consultation process, technical committees,
and First Nation consultation.
159
Interviewee perspectives about the ability of the public, Sounding Board members
and LGC members generally followed two tracks. First, participants felt that they had the
ability to shape technical studies because the review team listened to them when
developing the BC Provincial Decision. For example, a few participants mentioned how
they were able to request an additional scenario (specifically a mid-level Arrow scenario)
in the technical studies. Others talked about how they could see their views reflected in
the BC Provincial Decision and therefore felt they had the ability to at least influence that
level of policy. Several interviewees contrasted their influence in the BC CRT Review
process to the lack of influence they had in the original Treaty negotiations. One member
of the LGC said:
Coming from a place of 50 years ago where local citizens were not
consulted at all, to a place where the Province is actively engaged in the
basin and seriously considered the recommendations we've put forward
and has and is going to have some impact within the basin ongoing--that is
an enormous step forward. -LGC member
However, at the same time many were unsure whether or not the Province, specifically
the Provincial Cabinet, and the Federal Government of Canada, would listen to the basin
(i.e., would that influence persist beyond the review). Along these lines, one Sounding
Board member shared, “I don’t think anyone left the Sounding Board because they were
upset, but I do think people left the Sounding Board feeling they were ineffective.”
Members of the two technical committees did not comment on their ability to
influence policy issues, but focused on their influence on the technical studies as that was
their primary role in the Treaty review. Those participants felt they had some, limited
influence in developing the technical studies and noted that their role was primarily to
160
review the technical work done by the BC CRT review team, BC Hydro, and their
consultants. One technical committee member shared:
At the outset we thought we would have more of the role in the shaping of
the studies and in the planning of the studies, that our views would
be incorporated at that end. The way it ended up, and some of it may have
been driven by timelines on the BC side, and also who had resources and
who didn't. In the end, we were basically reviewing outcomes and
held more of an environmental assessment role of theoretical potential
outcomes of different project operations. Providing feedback that way still
gives us an opportunity to provide feedback, but it gives us less of a
chance to influence at that [later] stage, than in the planning stages.
- Environmental Advisory Committee member
Some wanted greater opportunity to influence the scoping of the technical work
completed during the Treaty review process. Other participants were okay with this setup
as they trusted those doing the technical work and felt they knew enough of what went
into the modeling to know that it was sufficient and accurate. A member of the Fish and
Wildlife Technical committee said:
We certainly didn’t have enough people on staff to go say, “Hey here is an
issue and we are going to do the analysis.” We end up saying, “here’s an
issue”. Then in this case the BC Hydro would have hired consultants to do
the analysis. So you don’t get the same familiarity or intimacy with the
issues in the data…But they did a good job of the beginning of their
meetings. They would say, “Okay, here is what we did. Here is the
outcome and here are the steps along the way.” -Fish and Wildlife
Technical Committee member
Both First Nation interviewees felt that they did not have the ability to influence
policy issues, specifically the BC Provincial Decision language, to the degree they
wanted, and felt should be able to, as sovereigns in the basin. Both interviewees
expressed frustration that they had little influence over the principles in the BC Provincial
Decision sharing that they were only able to get two points about First Nations into the
161
document. One also expressed disappointment at not being able to incorporate First
Nation knowledge of ecosystem processes in the technical studies.
Resources to participate
Interviewees shared experiences where a lack of resources was a barrier to
participation and other stories of how resources were available to promote meaningful
engagement. One member of the BC CRT Review Team shared that, “We had a budget
that government gave us enough latitude where everyone else was scrimping we had a
sufficient budget to respond and to hire [firms] to do this kind of work.” Government
agencies and stakeholders appreciated the access to funding to bring communities
together to talk about the future of the Treaty, enable the BC CRT Review Team to host
community meetings and workshops around the basin, and answer technical questions.
Some of the BC CRT Review money was used for the Local Governments
Committee (LGC) and Sounding Board. Sounding Board members’ travel expenses were
covered by the Province to help cover the cost of their involvement. The LGC used the
Provincial funds along with funding from the Columbia Basin Trust (CBT) to cover its
involvement and hire an executive director. The allocation of funding by the Province to
these efforts is particularly noteworthy because the Province did not have a legal
obligation to consult the basin communities (which I will discuss further in the next
subsection on context).
Other funding went to conduct the technical analysis and information gathering
efforts in the Review. A couple of interviewees talked about how funding from the BC
CRT Review allowed them to conduct technical studies to answer longstanding questions
from the basin communities. For example, the Village of Valemount and Town of Golden
162
wanted to investigate constructing a weir or dam in order to generate power and improve
recreation. Because funding was available through the review, the Province was able to
conduct a high level study on the feasibility of the project proposed by the community.
The Province also paid for travel for the members of the two technical committees
(the Fish and Wildlife Committee and Environmental Advisory Committee) to travel to
meetings. A couple of interviewees from government agencies (both federal and
provincial) noted that they did not have the resources to fully engage in the review. In
some cases, they were asked to participate in technical committees in addition to their
regular duties and overbooked schedule. As such, they did not have the time to participate
in the review at the level they wanted. One member of the Fish and Wildlife Technical
Committee shared the following recommendation for future processes:
I think things that are super important [like this] require engagement, so if
government agencies are squished to the point of being unable to properly
engage, like we were, that needs to be fixed. I don't know how, but I'd say
that was, from our point of view, a big flaw. -Fish and Wildlife Technical
Committee member
Another group that lacked resources were First Nations. As with the other
components of the BC CRT Review, the Province provided some funding to First
Nations. However, the First Nations felt this was insufficient to properly assess their
claims to title and resources in the basin. The federal government of Canada did not
contribute any funding to help First Nations engage in the process, which both First
Nations and government interviewees felt was a poor decision.
Fair notice and time for early involvement
Almost all interviewees felt they were given fair notice and the opportunity for
early involvement in the BC CRT Review. This was due to a combination of factors.
163
First, many in the basin were either impacted by the construction of the Treaty dams or
impacted by current operations of the dams. Some of these individuals were involved in
Treaty-related advocacy for years before the review and pushed for the Province to
conduct the BC CRT Review. Second, the CBT embarked on an education campaign to
prepare communities for involvement in the BC CRT Review before the Province even
developed the program. The Province then used this capacity-building initiative as a
springboard for its public consultation. Third, the Province was well aware of the mistake
it made in not considering public input 50 years earlier in the development of the Treaty
and did not want to make the same mistake. Therefore, the BC CRT Review Team made
a concerted effort to engage communities early in the process. Counter to those positive
experiences, one First Nation representative felt that his/her Nation was included in the
11th hour when the decision had already been made.
Other aspects of inclusivity
In addition to inductively investigating what interviewees said using the Water
GPA process characteristics, I looked for emergent themes related to inclusivity. I saw
two themes in the interviews. Both were praise for this process and a request that future
processes follow a similar approach. First, participants expressed an appreciation for the
ability to shape and structure of the engagement process. Second, a few interviewees
(including those who led the process and those who participated in it) talked about the
importance of meeting face-to-face. This helped with getting to know the different people
they were working with. One of the BC CRT Review Team members shared:
In small rural communities, they come together face-to-face and that is
what people wanted. When we asked them how they wanted to be
consulted they said, “We want more community, face-to-face meetings
where we can talk to each other as community members and work together
164
to figure it out and then we will tell you guys [what we want]. You can be
there as a resource, and if we have a question you can provide us with the
information and answer."…It was the personal, face-to-face connection
that made it real for people. I would have to say that the cynicism went
down and people felt that our whole team was there with honesty and
integrity. You don't get that over the internet you get that when you talk to
people face-to-face. And that is when the support for the process grew and
the belief in the integrity of the process grew. Because individuals saw
that we were human beings, not just bureaucrats, we are human beings
too, wanting to very honestly and sincerely do the right thing.
-BC CRT Review Team member
5.3.6 Context
Context can be defined as the various conditions of the basin and socio-ecological
system under which the decision is being made. I did not include measures of context in
the survey (I explain why in Chapter 2). To catalogue what aspects of context influenced
the BC CRT Review process and the BC Provincial Decision, I asked interviewees to
share examples of the ecological/biophysical, legal/political, social/cultural context or
other pre-existing conditions or issues that influenced the review. This allowed me to
identify place-specific factors that influenced the BC CRT Review. I coded the interview
transcripts (both the responses to that interview question as well as the whole transcript as
interviewees often brought up context at a variety of points during the interview) with the
secondary code ecological/biophysical, legal/political, social/cultural, and other using the
Water GPA framework. For the “legal/political” and “other” codes, I then inductively
coded a tertiary level within each of those secondary codes (Table 53).
165
Table 53. Important aspects of the basin context for the BC CRT Review
Code
Example(s)
Ecological/biophysical
Dam and reservoir impacts (e.g. dust storms), proximity to
the reservoir, recovery of Okanagan salmon, size of basin
Legal/political
Federal and Provincial laws
First Nation Relations
Historic grievances
Previous processes
Prior relationships
Social/cultural
Canadian Constitution, BC-Canada Agreement of 1963,
Indian Act, Species at Risk Act, International Rivers
Improvements Act, Water Sustainability Act, Migratory Bird
Convention Act
Rights and Title process, Tsilhqot’in Decision, efforts to reach
reconciliation, declaration that Sinixt are “extinct”
Exclusion from original Treaty negotiations, lack of
compensation
Water Use Planning in basin, prior First Nation consultation
efforts
Professional relationships from working in basin
Importance of salmon, strong environmental ethic in Interior
BC, amicability/deference
Other
Treaty education campaign, social, environmental, and
economic funding for communities affected by the Treaty;
funding and support for LGC
BC Ministry of Energy and Mines is a ministry that extracts
Institutional culture
natural resources
Social media and other engagement training for the lead
Training
agency
Table 53 summarizes the different aspect of the basin context interviewees shared as important
to the development and implementation of the BC CRT Review.
Columbia Basin Trust
Almost all interviewees mentioned the Columbia Basin Trust (CBT) as something
they believed impacted the review process. The Columbia Basin Trust is a Crown
corporation formed in 1995 to support the social, economic, and environmental wellbeing in the BC portion of the Columbia River Basin impacted by the CRT. CBT
supports a number of programs in the basin and is a very prominent organization in the
BC portion of the basin. CBT impacted the process in a number of ways. Some
participants talked about CBT’s initial outreach effort to educate the public about the
Treaty and prepare them for the upcoming review. Some participants felt better prepared
to participate in the BC CRT Review as a result of this outreach effort. Other participants
166
noted the benefit of having the CBT, trusted by many in the community, introduce the
BC CRT Review team The CBT also helped start and fund the Local Government
Committee so it could actively participate in the BC CRT Review.
Finally, early in the review public consultation process the BC CRT Review team
asked community members how they wanted to be engaged during the review. The
communities shared a number of requests including some of what CBT had already
started (i.e., the LGC and community meetings). A member of the LGC said:
I think the fact that we started the process earlier than the Province
did, very great because it was truly grassroots community led. Then the
Province said this is great, we have been planning to do something, and
since this structure is happening we will work with you. - LGC member
Interviewees talked about a few different ecological aspects of the basin that
influenced the BC CRT Review process. A couple of individuals also mentioned how the
restoration of salmon in the Okanagan Basin gave hope for reintroduction of salmon past
Grand Coulee (in the US) and back into Canada. Another physical aspect of the context
that impacted the BC CRT Review was the fact that the BC portion of the basin is fairly
small in size and, therefore, it was much easier to provide local opportunities for different
communities to participate. This is not to say that the BC Ministry of Energy and Mines
did not have a lot of work to do, but it is more feasible to engage around eight different
communities within an area of 102,400 km2 than dozens of communities in an area that is
five times larger (such as the US portion of the basin). The most commonly discussed
issue was the impacts of dam and reservoir management on life in the BC portion of the
basin. Individuals often cited the negative impacts of dam and reservoir operations, such
as dust storms, environmental degradation, and impaired access to recreation, as reasons
167
why they felt that the Province needed to consult with local communities. A community
leader in BC said “It was the citizens of the basin that directed this. There was an
insistence.” Interviewees also mentioned these impacts as reasons why they personally
needed to get involved in the review. One member of the LGC said:
People say, "Well, why don't they get over it? That was so many years
ago." But we're living with it every day. We're living with it every day,
and that's what we wanted the government to understand. Maybe you feel
that things happened in the 60's and everybody should be over it, and it
should be fine. But it's not, because we're constantly dealing with it every
day. - LGC member
As referenced in that quote, participants also talked about historical grievances as
something that motivated them to participate in the review process as well as a reason
why the Province conducted a public consultation process when one was not legally
required. There was some cynicism that the review needed to overcome as the result of
past processes, including but not limited to the original Treaty negotiations. All three
interviewees primarily involved in the First Nations consultation process discussed how
past experiences with consultation (or lack of consultation) made First Nations wary of
the Treaty review process. The fact that Canada declared the Sinixt people “extinct”
meant that BC did not engage the Sinixt in the First Nation consultation process, even
though Sinixt people still live in the basin.
Other legal and political aspects of the context that influenced the BC CRT
Review process were various environmental laws and the respective jurisdictions of the
Province versus the federal government of Canada. For example, several interviewees
mentioned the BC-Canada Agreement of 1963 as the reason why the Province, and more
specifically the BC Ministry of Energy and Mines, as opposed to the federal government
168
of Canada led the review. Individuals also referenced the fact that salmon fall under the
jurisdiction of the federal government of Canada as the explanation why the BC
Provincial Decision did not recommend pursuing reintroduction of salmon. Participants
noted the legal requirements for First Nations consultation as the reason why the First
Nations were consulted separately in a government-to-government process.
5.3.7 Other Aspects of the Process
Only one other aspect of the process emerged in my deductive coding of the
interview transcriptions. It is related to what I previously discussed in the subsection
“Other emergent subthemes of accountability” when I wrote about the influence of the
Executive Director of the BC CRT Review Team. A few participants referenced the role
of individual people and their personalities as having a positive influence on the process
and decision. In addition to the Executive Director, participants talked about a couple of
others whose personalities were such that they were unifying forces that were able to
bring people into the review or help educate others in the basin.
5.3.8 Decision (BC Provincial Decision)
With an understanding of what about the process worked well and what could
have been improved, I next talk about participant’s views of the BC Provincial Decision.
I start with the survey scores that assess the support for the decision in terms of whether it
is viewed as legitimate, reflective of the participants’ and more generally the basin’s
views, and a decision that will be effective (i.e., adopted as Canada’s policy position).
Then I document the various themes participants shared as their reasons for having
positive or negative views of the BC Provincial Decision.
169
Survey Results
Survey responses on the questions related to the BC Provincial Decision were
largely positive (Table 54). A large majority of survey participants (14 out of 16) agreed
that the BC Provincial Decision adequately addressed the central task of determining
whether the CRT should be continued, modified, or terminated. Three-quarters of
respondents also felt the BC Provincial Decision was legitimate (13 out of 17). However,
only half or slightly more than half felt that the BC Provincial Decision reflected their
views (8 of 14), reflected the views of the BC portion of the basin (9 of 15), and that the
decision would be adopted by Canada (8 of 16).
Table 54. BC CRT Review decision scores
Category
The recommendation adequately addressed
the review’s central task (i.e., determine if the
Treaty should be continued, modified, or
terminated)
The recommendation is legitimate
Mean
Distribution of Responses
Disagree Neutral
Agree
Total
4.09
2
0
14
16
4.00
2
2
13
17
The recommendation will be effective (i.e.,
the terms of recommendation will be
accepted by Canada)
3.50
3
3
8
14
The recommendation reflects the views of
the region (BC portion of basin)
3.59
3
3
9
15
The recommendation reflects your (or your
3.38
4
4
8
16
organization’s) views
Table 84 presents the mean scores and response counts for ALL survey participants in the BC
CRT Review on the BC Provincial Decision. Survey participants marked whether they strongly
disagreed (assigned value = 1), disagreed (assigned value = 2), were neutral (assigned value =
3), agreed (assigned value = 4), or strongly agreed (assigned value = 5) with each statement. I
averaged the responses to calculate a mean score. A higher mean score indicates higher overall
agreement with the statement. I compiled the “strongly disagreed” and “disagreed” as well as the
“strongly agreed” and “agreed” counts instead of reporting them in separate columns.
I separated out sovereign (government official or representative) scores from
stakeholder scores to explore if there were differences in those groups’ views of the
Provincial Decision. Sovereigns engaged in the BC CRT Review through technical
committees, the BC CRT Review Team, and Local Governments Committee. Since no
170
First Nation representatives elected to complete a survey, these respondents are all
affiliated with a local, provincial, or federal government in Canada and BC. Stakeholders
participated in the public consultation process and/or Sounding Board. Looking at the
government representative responses, those participants either agreed or were neutral on
all measurements of the BC Provincial Decision (Table 55). Stakeholder views on the
other hand were much more mixed (Table 56). While a majority of stakeholders agreed
that the BC Provincial Decision addressed the central task at hand (6 of 8), half or nearly
half disagreed that the BC Provincial Decision was legitimate (5 of 9), reflected their
views (4 of 8), reflected the views of the BC portion of the basin (3 of 7), and that the
decision would be adopted by Canada (3 of 7) (Table 56). I asked participants to share
why they felt the way they did about the BC Provincial Decision in the interview
following the survey. I report those views next.
Table 55. BC CRT Review sovereign decision scores
Category
The recommendation adequately addressed
the review’s central task (i.e., determine if the
Treaty should be continued, modified, or
terminated)
The recommendation is legitimate
Mean
Distribution of Responses
Disagree Neutral
Agree
Total
4.75
0
0
8
8
4.75
0
0
8
8
The recommendation will be effective (i.e.,
the terms of recommendation will be
accepted by Canada)
4.14
0
2
5
7
The recommendation reflects the views of
the region (BC portion of basin)
4.38
0
0
8
8
The recommendation reflects your (or your
4.25
0
2
6
8
organization’s) views
Table 85 presents the mean scores and response counts for sovereign survey participants in the
BC CRT Review on the BC Provincial Decision. Survey participants marked whether they strongly
disagreed (assigned value = 1), disagreed (assigned value = 2), were neutral (assigned value =
3), agreed (assigned value = 4), or strongly agreed (assigned value = 5) with each statement. I
averaged the responses to calculate a mean score. A higher mean score indicates higher overall
agreement with the statement. I compiled the “strongly disagreed” and “disagreed” as well as the
“strongly agreed” and “agreed” counts instead of reporting them in separate columns.
171
Table 56. BC CRT Review stakeholder decision scores
Category
Mean
Distribution of Responses
Disagree Neutral
Agree
Total
The recommendation adequately addressed
the review’s central task (i.e., determine if the
Treaty should be continued, modified, or
terminated)
3.50
2
0
6
8
The recommendation is legitimate
3.33
2
2
5
9
The recommendation will be effective (i.e.,
the terms of recommendation will be
accepted by Canada)
2.86
3
1
3
7
The recommendation reflects the views of
the region (BC portion of basin)
2.81
3
3
1
7
The recommendation reflects your (or your
2.61
4
2
2
8
organization’s) views
Table 86 presents the mean scores and response counts for sovereign survey participants in the
BC CRT Review on the BC Provincial Decision. Survey participants marked whether they strongly
disagreed (assigned value = 1), disagreed (assigned value = 2), were neutral (assigned value =
3), agreed (assigned value = 4), or strongly agreed (assigned value = 5) with each statement. I
averaged the responses to calculate a mean score. A higher mean score indicates higher overall
agreement with the statement. I compiled the “strongly disagreed” and “disagreed” as well as the
“strongly agreed” and “agreed” counts instead of reporting them in separate columns.
Interview results
During the semi-structured interviews, I gave participants the opportunity to share
their thoughts about the BC Provincial Decision. In terms of positive reflections, three
themes I observed were that participants: 1) felt the document mostly reflected the views
of the basin and more, 2) appreciated that it recognized past and present impacts to the
basin and some environmental values, 3) believed it set the stage for negotiations with the
US and put BC in a good negotiating position. The most commonly cited aspect of the
BC Provincial Decision that participants disagreed with was the exclusion of a
recommendation to bring salmon back into Canada. However, a few participants also
shared that they understood that the matter is a federal decision because salmon, as an
anadromous species, fall under federal jurisdiction. Others were still disappointed that the
reintroduction of salmon was not included in the Provincial Decision. First Nations
172
representatives had strong negative views of the Provincial Decision. Not addressing
salmon was part of that disappointment, but the representatives also expressed frustration
that: 1) they did not have a stronger voice in the document, and that 2) it did not
recognize their rights as sovereigns in the basin. Several interviewees were also very
unsure if the BC Provincial Decision would be accepted and acted upon by Canada. More
specifically, some had fears that BC and Canada’s future action on the CRT would be
dictated by whatever political party was in power--not the views of the basin. Many of
these positive, negative, and neutral views of the document are reflected in a quote by a
LGC member who shared:
I think it reflects our views for the most part. I was a bit neutral because,
there were a couple of things, for example, the salmon restoration and the
benefits coming back to the basin that we are a bit unsure of yet. The
Province has not discounted anything we have said in our
recommendations. The Minister, Bill Bennett, actually said that he saw no
huge red flags at all. All of the things that you have talked about seem
reasonable at this time, but that doesn't mean there is a commitment to
continuing to work with us. As this unfolds and as the legacy of the work
we've done unfolds and more things are happening, I'll be a little more
sure. At this point I'm waiting to see. -LGC member
5.3.9 Byproducts
In the survey, I asked participants to note whether various byproducts emerged,
increased, decreased, or experienced no change as a result of the BC CRT Review
process. A majority of survey respondents reported an increase in in nearly all byproducts
in the list provided (Table 57). All 18 participants indicated that shared information and
knowledge increased as a result of the Treaty review process. All but one respondent (out
of 18) listed that their own education and awareness increased as a result of the Treaty
reviews process. Likewise, all but one person recorded that they had a better
understanding of other participant’s views and that mutual/shared understanding of the
173
CRT and related issues also increased. The only byproduct that most participants noted as
decreasing was the level of conflict and hostility in the basin, where 13 of 18 survey
respondents noted a decrease.
I also asked participants to list up to three byproducts from the process that were
most important to them and three byproducts they wished had resulted from the process.
The responses demonstrated that what participant’s felt was most important and what
they most wanted varied (Table 58). When asked to indicate which byproducts were most
important to them, participants most frequently cited relational byproducts, including
communication, mutual/shared understanding, and quality of relationships (Table 58).
Four to five participants indicated these as the byproducts most important to them. Four
participants also listed changes in water management as one of the byproducts most
important to them (Table 58).
The two byproducts mentioned the most by participants as something they wished
resulted from the process were collaboration with other groups and more technical
models (Table 58). In terms of collaboration, a number of people wanted greater
collaboration with First Nations groups in order to improve their understanding of First
Nations’ views (though they understood and respected First Nations’ rights to engage the
government separately in a government-to-government process). Other participants listed
changes in water management, new programs or initiatives, economic opportunities,
understanding of ecological/biophysical system, co-produced science, and trust in the
lead agency as what they wished had resulted from the BC CRT Review Process.
174
No change
or don’t
know
No
response
17
0
1
0
17
0
1
0
16
0
2
0
Quality of relationships
15
0
2
1
Coalitions
14
0
3
1
Trust in others involved
11
0
5
2
Trust in the lead agency
11
1
5
1
Level of conflict and hostility
2
13
2
1
Shared knowledge and information
18
0
0
0
Your own education/awareness
Understanding of ecological/
biophysical system
17
0
1
0
16
0
1
1
15
0
2
1
14
14
0
0
2
3
2
1
Public education/awareness
12
0
5
1
Understanding of the social system
12
0
5
1
Human capital
17
0
1
0
Social capital
15
0
3
0
Innovation
14
0
4
0
Ability to resolve future disputes
11
0
6
1
Community capacity for decision
making
11
0
7
0
Institutional capacity
10
0
8
0
Programs or initiatives
12
0
6
0
Changes in water management
11
0
5
2
Economic opportunities
7
1
10
0
Economic costs
4
1
12
1
Youth engagement
1
0
0
17
OTHER
KNOWLEDGE-BASED
RELATIONAL
Mutual/shared understanding
Understanding of other’s views,
positions, etc.
Communication
CAPACITY-BUILDING
Decreased
TANGIBLES
Table 57. BC CRT Review byproduct counts
Emerged
Byproduct
and/or
Increased
Your organization’s education/
awareness
Co-produced science
Technical models
Social media communication
1
0
0
17
Understanding of climate change
1
0
0
17
Strength of transboundary relations
0
1
1
17
Table 57 presents the number of survey respondents who noted a decrease,
emergence/increase, or no change in different byproducts that can be influenced by a process.
Please note: totals may equal more than 18 (the number of survey participants) as some
respondents noted that a byproduct both emerged and increased (or increased and decreased).
175
5
0
Mutual/shared understanding
4
0
Quality of relationships
4
0
Trust in others involved
2
0
Coalitions
1
0
Understanding of other’s views, positions, etc.
1
0
Level of conflict and hostility
0
0
Trust in the lead agency
0
1
Public education/awareness
3
0
Understanding of ecological/biophysical system
Co-produced science
2
1
1
2
Technical models
1
3
Your organization’s education/awareness
1
0
Shared knowledge and information
0
0
Understanding of the social system
0
0
Your own education/awareness
0
0
CAPACITY-BUILDING
Ability to resolve future disputes
1
0
Community capacity for environmental/policy
decision making
1
1
Human capital
1
0
Innovation
1
0
Institutional capacity
0
0
Social capital
0
0
Changes in water management
4
2
Economic costs
0
0
Economic opportunities
0
2
Programs or initiatives (outside of the decision)
0
2
Other (total)
1
6
Other - Collaboration with others
0
3
No response
1
7
KNOWLEDGE-BASED
RELATIONAL
Communication
TANGIBLES
Byproducts they
wished resulted
from review
OTHER
Table 58. Most important byproducts of the BC CRT Review
Most important
Byproduct
byproduct from
review
Table 58 displays what survey respondents reported as the most important byproducts from the
BC CRT Review and which byproducts they wished had resulted from the review process.
176
The semi-structured interviews provided an opportunity to share examples of the
various byproducts of the process (Table 59Table 91) and talk in greater detail about why
different byproducts were important. The most frequently mentioned byproduct was the
Columbia Basin Regional Advisory Committee (CBRAC). Modeled after the Sounding
Board and fitting into the new BC Water Sustainability Act, this committee consists of
community members, First Nations, local representatives, and provincial representatives.
It merges the different engagement tracks of the BC CRT Review into one body that will
work to address some of the domestic matters identified during the BC CRT Review
(such as hydropower operations) as well as continue discussions about the future of the
CRT. CBRAC and the LGC also serve as conduits through which BC Hydro can increase
and improve its communication with communities impacted by its dams. They also are
viewed as means to improve institutional capacity and community capacity for decision
making in the basin. Interviewees also talked about how they learned more about the
Treaty and basin during the review through the various community and committee
meetings. Participating in the meetings also allowed them to work with basin residents,
government ministries, local elected officials from their communities as well as different
geographic areas in the basin and different parts of government. This led to a better
understanding of different views.
Several participants shared a concern about how long lasting different byproducts
might be. For example, participants felt that the BC CRT Review process increased trust,
understanding, institutional capacity, and community capacity for decision making.
However, they worried that without a continuation of the process or continued
engagement, those benefits of the process will decrease over time. Participants hoped that
177
initiatives, such as the LGC and CBRAC, would provide venues to continue the work and
progress made by the BC CRT Review.
Table 59. Example byproducts of the BC CRT Review
Byproduct
Examples
“I felt like every time I came away from one of those sessions, I
felt, okay I've got another perspective…I now understand a lot
Understanding of other’s
better why he is taking the position he is. That is very important to
views
me in this whole process. Not getting a single common view but
understanding the wide range of the views.” - BC citizen
More and improved BC Hydro presentations to communities; new
Communication
communication between BC Hydro and LGC
Province-BC Hydro relationship, LGC-BC Hydro relationship,
Quality of relationships
other personal relationships
Coalitions
CRT Roundtable
“As people identified that they needed new information it was
Shared knowledge and
gathered and we are gathering new information around this new
information
operation we are looking at.” -BC CRT Review Team member
Your own education/
“I've learned a tremendous amount about what life was like before
awareness
the dams went in and what it is like now.” - LGC member
Understanding of ecological
Impacts of operating a mid-Arrow elevation scenario
system
Co-produced science
Fish studies (e.g., white sturgeon and rainbow trout)
Technical models
Have capacity to model US system now
Public education/awareness
Grade 6 CRT educational material
Human capital
Innovation
Ability to resolve disputes
Community capacity
“Their temporary assignments came to an end and they were all
offered or achieved significant promotions in government for what
they accomplished in the Treaty review. It was a great mentoring
and growth opportunity.” -BC CRT Review Team member
Use of social media, having anthropological and historic
researchers attend meetings with First Nations to discuss the
strength of First Nations claims
Through LGC and Columbia Basin Regional Advisory Committee
Columbia Basin Regional Advisory Committee
“I think here institutional capacity for the basin to adapt to change
Institutional capacity
that really to me would be embodied in the Local Governments
Committee” - Sounding Board member
Columbia Basin Regional Advisory Committee, pilot First Nation
government-to-government engagement process (MOU),
Programs or initiatives
Kootenay Fish and Wildlife Compensation Program; federal
working group meetings on cross cutting issues like the CRT
Economic opportunities
Potential for geothermal plant
“Understanding how climate change will affect the timing and
availability of water in the basin and how the Treaty can address
Understanding of climate
that. Can it help mitigate? Is it going to be impacted? What is the
change relevance
value of the Treaty to both parties in a climate change scenario?”
- Technical committee member
Table 59 lists example byproducts shared by participants in their interviews and surveys.
178
5.4 Case Study Discussion
In the section above I presented the results of my analysis of the BC CRT Review
using the Water GPA. In this section I will discuss what those results mean in terms of
what were the barriers and building blocks of good water governance in the BC CRT
Review decision making process and what are the lessons learned from that process? I
first briefly summarize the findings of my application of the Water GPA framework to
identify barriers and building blocks of good water governance. Then I present lessons
learned along with interviewee recommendations for future processes in the basin. I end
this section with a discussion of the caveats and limitations of this case study before
concluding the chapter.
5.4.1 Discussion of Water GPA ‘score’
The results of the Water GPA analysis reveal a number of areas where the BC
CRT Review reflected good process practices and others where the process needed
improvements. It reveals which characteristics of the process (i.e., accountability,
inclusivity, and information) promoted or impeded good water governance in the BC
Treaty review (Table 60). Therefore, it helps answer my third research question: What
are lessons learned for good water governance from the Canadian and American reviews
of the CRT?
179
Accountability
 Transparency with public
engagement
 Approach to scoping process
 Responsiveness of BC CRT
Review Team
 Clarity of path forward
 Support for choice of
process lead
 First Nation consultation
 Lack of clear decision
criteria
 Confusion about how
public input would be
included in decision
 First Nation input into
the decision
Inclusivity
 Representation of public, local
officials, and various
stakeholders in process
 Participant involvement in
design of engagement process
 Technical committees make-up
 Multiple face-to-face meetings
 Ability of groups to
influence policy issues
and technical studies
 Resources availability
 Representation of First
Nations
 Degree of involvement
of select ministries on
technical committees
Information
 Information collected from and
shared with affected
communities
 Extent of information sharing in
public consultation and
technical committees
 Extent of technical
studies
 Use of Water Use
Planning information
 Whether information
shared was audience
appropriate
 Information sharing
with First Nations
Other
factors
Table 60. Summary of BC CRT Review Water GPA accountability, information, and
inclusivity results
What needed
What worked well
What had mixed results
improvement
 Personal leadership of different
individuals
Table 60 summarizes what worked well (i.e., was a building block of good water governance) and
what did not (i.e., was a barrier to good water governance) in the BC CRT Review.
Accountability
Three aspects of accountability contributed to the BC CRT Review (specifically
the public consultation component) being a good water governance process. First, the
high degree of transparency reduced cynicism and built trust in the public engagement
process. Likewise, the Treaty review approach to not treat anything as out-of-scope (but
rather work with communities to determine what issues were best addressed via the
Treaty and which could be addressed by other means) helped participants view those
choices as legitimate. It also acknowledged participant views and concerns, something
they had been waiting for. Finally, in general the BC CRT Review was very responsive to
180
requests made by the public during the review. The Review Team was willing to do the
work necessary to fulfill a community’s request or honestly explain why they could not,
or would not, do so. As a member of the BC CRT Review Team shared:
We did not withhold any information when answering questions. We
answered them directly, to the point that when people asked us to
investigate different options or issues that were important to them and
come back with an answer. Sometimes the answer was no. I have to say
that there are people in government that will say, "Well maybe you should
answer it this way or that way." And I say no, you know, explain no and
why no. And people really respected that. We provided all the information
in an objective way, a nonpolitical way even knowing that some of our
responses were responses that frankly they didn't want to hear or weren't
happy hearing. But for us the integrity part was paramount. As soon as
you lose that then everything else falls into pieces. - BC CRT Review
Team member
There were also a few areas where the process both succeeded in some ways and
needed improvement in other ways. Consultation of one First Nation through a trilateral,
government-to-government process was a positive development in First Nation relations
for one nation. However, another First Nation did not feel they were engaged as a
sovereign. Some interviewees did not think the right ministry was chosen to lead the
process, suggesting the review should have been done at the federal level or by a ministry
that was not biased towards continuation of the Treaty. Finally, participants were unsure
of what would happen after the release of the BC Provincial Decision. While happy with
that document and the BC CRT Review, they expressed skepticism about whether the
Province or federal Canada would accept the BC Provincial Decision and act on it.
Three areas of accountability needed improvement and acted as barriers to good
water governance. First, participants were unsure how the Province would make its
decision. Likewise, participants were unsure of how their input would factor into the
181
decision. While it is the Provincial Cabinet’s prerogative to negotiate and make its
decision behind closed doors, the process could have been improved by providing at least
a general framework for what it would consider as it made its decision. A third area in
need of improvement was how First Nation’s views as sovereigns would be considered in
the decision and how to respect and/or incorporate their decision authority into the
process and decision.
Inclusivity
Most participants involved in the public consultation process liked the approach
and felt it was generally good process. Specifically, the ability of the communities to help
shape the structure and content of the engagement process helped ensure that it facilitated
what they thought was meaningful engagement. Several of those who engaged in the
public consultation process and technical committees in particular felt the face-to-face
meetings were a building block to good water governance in this process. Technical
committee members also felt the right people had a seat on the technical committees.
Participant observations and perceptions of whether different groups had the
ability to influence the review technical studies and policy issues varied. First Nations did
not feel they had the ability to influence policy or the technical studies. Those involved in
the public consultation process felt they influenced some aspects of the technical work
and saw their voices in the BC Provincial Decision as evidence of their influence on
policy. However, many were unsure whether their influence would extend beyond the
Treaty review and translate into provincial or federal action on the Treaty. Technical
committee members felt they had a more limited ability to influence the scoping of the
technical work than they hoped, and instead felt their influence was mostly in reviewing
182
technical work completed by the BC CRT Review Team, BC Hydro, and their
consultants.
Sufficient resources for the BC CRT Review enabled participants to engage in
different aspects of the process, such as the LGC and Sounding Board. It also allowed the
Review Team to meet with communities multiple times and respond to their information
requests. Likewise, funds allowed technical committees to meet in person and do their
work. But not all groups had enough resources to participate. Resource availability was a
reason some agencies were less involved in technical committees than they or others
wanted.
Another area that needed improvement was the representation of First Nations in
the process. Non-indigenous interviewees expressed a concern that they were not able to
hear First Nation perspectives. The First Nation participants I interviewed also wanted a
better process for their involvement on both the technical or policy side of things. The
critical path process set up for one First Nation was seen as an important first step in that
direction.
Information
Aspects of the Treaty review’s information-related components that worked well
included the extent and quality of the information collected from and shared with basin
communities affected by the Treaty. In general information sharing for both the public
consultation process and technical committees was a strength of the water governance
process. First Nations participants, however, felt information sharing in the First Nation
consultation process was poor and needed improvement.
183
Participants had differing views as to whether other components of the BC
Ministry of Energy and Mines’ collection and use of information contributed to or
prevented good water governance. Overly technical presentations were initially a barrier
to good water governance. The Treaty review addressed this problem in part by making
public presentations less technical and offering a technical conference to those interested
in the technical details. Using the Water Use Planning information and technical studies
was seen to some as a good thing because it utilized existing information instead of
having to recollect information and redo technical studies. Asking community members if
that information still reflected the communities’ views demonstrated that the Review
Team did their research and knew something about community concerns related to dam
and reservoir management in the basin. However, the use of some of the technical
information from the Water Use Plans may have not been appropriate when examining
the impacts of a Treaty terminates scenario since the data included assumptions based on
current Treaty operations. Those studies may not accurately portray the social,
environmental, and economic impacts of the different Treaty scenarios examined in the
BC CRT Review because of incorrect assumptions. Some participants also felt the review
should have conducted additional technical studies, while others thought they were
sufficient. Therefore, depending on the participant’s view, the technical information used
and the limited technical studies were barriers to good water governance.
Other factors
The personalities and leadership qualities of the BC CRT Review Team Executive
Director and others were strong assets in the BC CRT Review. Several interviewees
184
shared that these individuals were critical to the success of the process and improved the
water governance decision making process.
Context
In the Water GPA, I advocate that water managers and those developing a
decision making process, take an inventory of the context and then identify what about
the context are barriers or leverage points for good governance (Table 61). I will now
examine how well the BC Ministry of Energy and Mines worked to overcome the
challenges and capitalize opportunities presented by the context.
Table 61. Water GPA examination of BC CRT Review context
Potential Barrier
Potential Leverage Point
Inclusivity
 Declaration that Sinixt are extinct
 Past ‘drive-by’ First Nation consultation
experiences
 Distrust of government due to original Treaty
negotiations
 CBT CRT information
sessions
 LGC
 BC CRT Review Team
training
Information
 Limited time to complete studies
 Water Use Plans
 Jurisdiction disconnect (specifically related
 Executive Director’s
First Nation consultation and salmon)
history with basin
Accountability
 Declaration that Sinixt are extinct (barrier to
 Minister of Energy and
procedural justice)
Mines is from basin
Table 61 lists different aspects of the US CRT 2014/2024 context and how they might pose a
challenge or barrier to or leverage point for good water governance in each of the three other
process categories (inclusivity, information, and accountability).
The BC CRT Review Team capitalized on a number of leverage points. For
example, it utilized and then built upon the technical studies and stakeholder engagement
completed for the Water Use Plans in the region. The Review also tapped into the
capacity building initiatives started by the Columbia Basin Trust, namely the CBT’s CRT
information sessions and the LGC. A third example of the BC Ministry of Energy and
Mines utilizing the resources available to it, include employing social media engagement
strategies recently learned by one team member through a government training. The
185
process also benefited from the Minister of Energy and Mines being from the basin. The
Minister knew about the past wrongs against the basin communities and wanted better
governance this time around. One interviewee shared, “[The Minister] said, ‘People
weren't consulted the first time--do it right this time.’” Likewise, participants appreciated
that the BC CRT Review Team Executive Director lived in the region for 10 years and
felt that s/he was better able to lead because s/he knew the basin.
The BC CRT Review Team worked to overcome some of the existing barriers in the
basin and ignored others. The BC Ministry of Energy and Mines actively worked to
address the cynicism and mistrust felt by many communities due to past experiences with
the original CRT negotiations. These efforts included conducting an extensive public
consultation process even though one was not legally required, allowing process
participants to help determine the structure of engagement and what was within the scope
of the review, referring participants with concerns that fell out-of-scope to other venues
and resources rather than just ignoring them, and releasing a draft version of the
Provincial Decision for community review (which is typically not done). In many cases
these efforts were successful. One interviewee shared
I remember one Councilor and how at the first meeting he was yelling at
me from the back of the room and "You're not serious," "You won't even
listen to us" and "this is just a paper exercise" and "You'll just go back to
Victoria." And at the end [of the process], he said "You know this was an
opportunity for communities, the first time ever, for communities to come
together and to talk about what happened. And to share amongst
themselves how it [the Treaty] affected them, what their hopes were for
the future, and to talk about the Treaty." And he said it was quite cathartic
for his community. - BC CRT Team member
I heard conflicting narratives as to whether the Province tried to address distrust
of the government by First Nations resulting from prior negative experiences with
186
previous consultation processes (or lack of consultation). The government officials I
interviewed felt they met their legal duty to consult. However, the First Nations
representatives shared a different story. One First Nation representative felt like its nation
was treated as a stakeholder and not as a sovereign. The other shared that its nation had to
push for a more meaningful engagement process after receiving an invitation to
participate in what s/he thought was an unacceptable process.
A challenge that the Province addressed and ignored in part was somewhat of a
jurisdictional disconnect. Where they attempted to address it was in First Nation
consultation. The First Nations prefer to consult on a nation-to-nation basis with federal
Canada and not with the Province. However, the Province was the one leading the BC
CRT Review. To attend to this issue, the federal government participated in First Nation
consultation in an observer role. This did not completely address First Nation concerns
but was a step in the right direction. The other jurisdictional disconnect in the review was
the issue of reintroduction of salmon back into Canada. That issue, popular among many
basin residents and First Nations, falls under federal jurisdiction. Therefore, the Province
did not feel it could recommend salmon reintroduction as many participants wanted 9.
While that may be the case, the Province could have worked with the Department of
Fisheries and Oceans to consider including a provision for salmon restoration.
Another barrier to inclusivity, as well as procedural justice, was the legal
designation of the Sinixt as extinct. The BC CRT Review took the position that since the
nation is not recognized by Canada, it did not have a duty to consult the Sinixt.
Participants were critical of the Province’s decision to not address this issue.
9
This could also be an attempt to better position itself for negotiations with the US.
187
5.4.2 Lessons Learned
Based on what the participants identified as working well as well as what needed
improvement in the US CRT 2014/2024 Review process, I identified several lessons
learned for future decision making processes in this basin or similar basins facing similar
challenges (Table 62). This addresses part of my research question: what lessons in water
governance can be learned from the two reviews of the CRT? These lessons are most
applicable to the BC portion of the Columbia River Basin, but may also have
applicability in similar basins. I discuss the lessons in no particular order.
Table 62. BC CRT Review lessons learned for future water governance processes
Recommendations and Lessons Learned
Allow participants to help structure engagement
Take Tsilhqot'in decision to heart and work with First Nations to determine what it means for
future processes
Invest in or capitalize on capacity building efforts
Develop criteria for what would be a successful decision
Clearly specify how process participant input will be used
Choose the right leader
Understand that trust may not necessarily scale up
Invest wisely because resources make a difference
Don’t just close the loop, share what you know about the future
Table 62lists the lessons learned during the BC CRT Review for future water governance
decision making processes in the basin or in similar basins.
One positive lesson learned and recommendation for future processes is to allow
participants to help structure engagement. A seen in how the basin communities
helped structure the BC CRT Review public engagement process and how one First
Nation negotiated trilateral, critical path process, considering participant input in the
development of the process can contribute to more meaningful engagement. With this
approach, participants can identify what is most important to them and the process lead
188
can use that knowledge to inform their efforts. As one member of the BC CRT Review
Team shared:
We basically tailored the process to the communities. I've been involved
in other processes before for community consultation, where this is box
and this is how we do it and you come and we give you a PowerPoint and
you ask questions, we answer, and we go away. That's it. But here, the
value, the real learning for us is that we say here are some options, what
works for you? It's not the one size fits all and each community may want
to be engaged in slightly different ways with different tools. Government
needs to be able to adapt to that. - BC CRT Review Team member
This approach may also reduce skepticism and cynicism of the process. A representative
of a First Nation said:
We're pleased that we were, I think we were the only ones in Canada that
rewrote the terms of engagement and we're very cynical about engaging in
other venues that the province had set up, which were predetermined,
designed to have a predetermined outcome. -First Nations representative
With this in mind a corollary recommendation is to take Tsilhqot'in decision to
heart and work with First Nations to determine what it means for future processes.
At this point in time, a year after the Tsilhqot'in decision, the First Nations I interviewed
do not feel much has changed. A representative of one First Nation commented:
The Tsilhqot'in decision changes the nature of how we now engage with
the Crown, although the Crown hasn't caught up to the decision. The
Crown is still in denial of the decision but say, "Oh yeah, yeah. We
understand it's there, but we're trying to figure it out, it's going to take a
while." Meanwhile they are going to try to still shove down the status quo.
- First Nation representative
The Crown (both provincial and federal) must adhere to the precedent set by the court
decision. The question is how they will move in that direction. As one agency
representative commented:
The Crown, the governments, always have a choice. A simple choice,
between begrudgingly doing the minimum required to get this issue to go
away or to do much more than the legal minimum required in order to
189
pursue that higher objective of reconciliation. That to me is fulfilling the
honor of the Crown. Being narrow and defensive, and making your
decisions where the primary objective is to avoid a nuisance, is completely
wrong. It isn't going to solve anything. - Agency representative
A third lesson is to invest in or capitalize on capacity building efforts. Two
capacity building initiatives better prepared the BC portion of the basin for the BC CRT
Review, the CBT CRT information sessions and the creation of the LGC. Better educated
about the Treaty and its impacts, communities had a stronger voice than they would have
otherwise. The BC CRT Review Team was also smart to capitalize on the work already
done in the basin, by having a trusted organization introduce them to the basin as well as
by continuing to engage the LGC. One member of the LGC said:
So I think the first round of [community] meetings and even the second
was sponsored by CBT and then the government took over from there. It
was a good way to do it, because people have a lot more trust in the
Columbia Basin Trust, and then it was a good way for the Review Team to
be introduced and for people to start to see that they [the Review Team]
were open. - LGC member
Another lesson for this case study is to invest wisely because resources make a
difference. The CBT hosted information sessions on the CRT because it had the
resources for them and believe they were a wise investment. The LGC could operate and
hire an executive director because CBT and the LGC provided the funds for it to do so.
Technical committees and the Sounding Board could meet in person because of access to
travel funds and per diems. On the flip side, a lack of staff resources meant a couple of
agencies could not be as active in the review. If process leads and those who appropriate
funding want meaningful engagement they need to be willing to allocate resources for
those efforts.
190
Another recommendation is to develop criteria for what would be a successful
decision. This provides a roadmap for process to participants and helps them understand
where the process is heading. Along the same lines, it is also important to clearly specify
how process participant input will be used. This will combat cynicism and assures
participants that the process lead genuinely wants their input.
A seventh lesson from this process is to not only close the loop, share what you
know about the future. The BC CRT Review released a draft Provincial Decision, an
atypical act because normally such a decision would be considered advice to the
Provincial Cabinet (and therefore confidential). Participants liked this and the BC CRT
Review Team thought it was an important way to go back to communities and
communicate that they listened to participants. In addition to closing the loop on a
process, it is also important to describe the path forward. For the BC CRT Review that
included the formation of the Columbia Regional Advisory Committee, which will
continue the work of the Sounding Board but focused on both domestic and Treatyrelated issues. However, participants wanted more clarity on the path forward after the
BC Provincial Decision (and greater assurance that Canada will act on it). At the same
time, knowing the content of the BC Provincial Decision and hearing the federal
government of Canada say it had no objections to the decision assuaged some of these
concerns.
Another recommendation and lesson from the BC CRT Review is to choose the
right leader and team. Those interviewees that spoke about the BC CRT Review
Executive Director often commented on how s/he was personally well-suited for the job
and did a good job because s/he knew the basin and possessed strong social and
191
leadership skills. Some participants also spoke highly of the BC CRT Review Team and
their professionalism.
Unfortunately, the BC CRT Review case study indicates that trust may not
necessarily scale up. Even when a process builds trust that trust may not translate to the
agency or government as a whole. Participants indicated that their trust in others,
including other process participants and the BC CRT Review Team increased, but they
remained skeptical about whether the Province and federal Canada would follow through
on the BC Provincial Decision.
In order to follow through on these recommendations and/or apply the lessons
learned in future processes, a process lead may encounter a number of challenges (Table
63). In addition to recommendation-specific challenges, there are also cross-cutting
challenges like resource availability in terms of funding, staff and time that may make it
difficult to adopt these recommendations.
192
Table 63. Potential challenges to following recommendations and lessons learned
Lesson Learned/
Challenges
Recommendation
Allow participants to help
 Participants might want something that is not possible
structure engagement
 Requires process lead to be flexible and to give up control
 May be resource intensive
Invest in or capitalize on capacity  Requires forward planning rather than reactive funding
building efforts
 Requires strategic planning to predict what capacity for
potentially unknown future processes
 Can take a lot of time
Develop an understanding of
 Once developed it is easy to forget them and not loop back
criteria for a successful decision
and make sure the decision is in line with the established
criteria
Take Tsilhqot'in decision to heart
and work with First Nations to
 The Crown may have to give up some of the authority it has
determine what it means for
been operating with
future processes
 There may be limited options
 There is no way to know exactly what a process will involve
Choose the right leader
or how it may evolve so there is some uncertainty about
what skillsets might be most needed
Clearly specify how process
participant input will be used
 Requires process lead to determine this early in the
process
Understand that trust does not
necessarily scale up
Resources make a difference, so
invest wisely
 Just because a process builds trust that trust may not
translate to the agency or government as a whole
 The basin or process lead may not have many resources
 The process lead might not know much about what the
future holds (e.g., the CRT future is in part dependent on
the US decision)
Table 63 documents some of the potential challenges a process lead may face in incorporating
the lessons learned from the BC CRT Review into future water governance decision making
processes. I developed this table based on interviewee observations and recommendations as
well as my own knowledge of the process and common process challenges.
Don’t just close the loop, share
what you know about the future
5.4.3 Caveats and Limitation
My case study analysis includes several caveats and limitations. For instance, the
number of people surveyed is a distinct limitation of this research. With only 18 surveys
statistical analysis is limited to basic statistics. Also, only one person from a First Nation
chose to complete the survey, meaning that group is under-represented in the survey
findings. One way to overcome this limitation in future research is to have the process
lead distribute the survey to all process participants.
193
There are two primary limitations to my interview analysis. One limitation is that
I was the sole coder of the transcripts. To strengthen my findings, I could have other
people also code my interview transcripts, check inter-coder reliability, refine my codes,
and update my analysis. A second limitation of my interviews is that while I reached out
to each First Nation, I was not able to interview a representative from every First Nation
that participated in the BC CRT Review. Since the Province consulted with each nation
separately those not interviewed may have experiences and views that are different than
what I heard from the two nations I did interview.
Another limitation of this study centers on the fact that I asked participants to selfreport their experiences and share their perceptions. While I interviewed most
participants within a year of the end of the decision making process, many had moved
onto new projects. One participant also advised me to be cautious of a cultural difference
between Canadians and Americans. S/he suggested that Canadians have a tendency to
focus on the positive or give deference to the government and therefore more frequently
report positive, rather than negative experiences, because culturally they are more
amicable. Others agreed but felt this was less of an issue in this portion of BC.
In some instances participants shared conflicting narratives of events or
explanations of why something happened during the review. In some ways a variation in
views is to be expected as participants engaged in the review in different ways and
therefore had different vantage points in the process. To address this issue, I identified a
participant’s affiliation or their involvement in the Treaty review so that the reader could
understand where that participant’s view might be coming from (without specifically
identifying whose view I reported and thereby breaking confidentiality). I also used
194
multiple sources in my case studies to draw my conclusions. To verify, or ground-truth,
different narratives, I decided needed three sources to confirm the narrative. For example,
I might use observations from two different people and a document (from a different
sources than those two people) to verify what happened during the review. When I used
less than three sources, I specifically identified that fact saying things like “one
participant shared” or “A couple of interviewees noted.”
5.5 Chapter Conclusion
In this chapter, I presented the first of two case study applications of the Water
Governance Process Assessment (Water GPA). Through this case study, of Phase 2 of the
BC CRT Review, I sought to answer two of my research questions, namely: 1) How can
the characteristics identified in the Water GPA be used to evaluate a water governance
process (research question 2), and 2) What are lessons learned for good water governance
from the Canadian and American reviews of the CRT (research question 3)?
I began the chapter with a description of the Canadian review of the Treaty, which
I called the BC CRT Review. I described how the BC Ministry of Energy and Mines,
through its BC CRT Review Team, led a process with three major components: a public
engagement (community meetings, the LGC, and Sounding Board), technical
committees, and First Nation consultation. After describing the review, I provided a
narrative description of how the BC CRT Review Team drafted and revised the BC
Provincial Decision, which it released in March 2014.
I then evaluated the BC CRT Review using the Water Governance Process
Assessment (Water GPA) as my framework for analysis, in order to answer my research
question “How can the characteristics identified in the Water GPA be used to evaluate a
195
water governance process?” I collected data via surveys and semi-structured interviews
of process participants as well as via document analysis of the BC Provincial Decision.
From this analysis, I identified a number of barriers and building blocks to good water
governance in this decision making process (Table 60 and Table 61) as well as lessons
learned (Table 62). Lessons learned and recommendations for future processes in this and
similar basins are: 1) allow participants to help structure engagement, 2) take Tsilhqot'in
decision to heart and work with First Nations to determine what it means for future
processes, 3) invest in or capitalize on capacity building efforts, 4) invest wisely because
resources can make a difference, 5) develop criteria for what would be a successful
decision, 6) clearly specify how process participant input will be used, 7) don’t just close
the loop, share what you know about the future, 8) choose the right leader and team,
understand that trust may not necessarily scale up, and 9).
196
6 Case Study: US Columbia River Treaty 2014/2024 Review
In this chapter, I present the second of two case study applications of the Water
Governance Process Assessment (Water GPA). I seek to answer the research questions:
‘How can the characteristics identified in the Water GPA be used to evaluate a water
governance process?’, and ‘What lessons in water governance can be learned from the
two reviews of the CRT?’ I begin the chapter with a description of the US review of the
Treaty before sharing and discussing the results of my analysis.
6.1 Overview of the US CRT 2014/2024 Review Process
The US Army Corps of Engineers (the Corps) and Bonneville Power Authority
(BPA) led the US Columbia River Treaty 2014/2024 Review (US CRT 2014/2024
Review). The review process set out to evaluate the upcoming changes to the CRT and to
provide a recommendation to the US Department of State on whether or not to give
notice to terminate the Treaty. While the US has not shared its final decision about the
Treaty, the US CRT 2014/204 Treaty Review was a decision making process that
developed the recommendation to the US Department of State. Thus this process and its
resulting US Regional Recommendation, serve as the focus of this evaluation. This case
study focuses on the US CRT 2014/2024 Review from the completion of the joint Phase
1 studies with the Canadian Entity (in July 2010) to the delivery of the US Regional
Recommendation in December 2013. I refer to this period as “Phase 2” of the US CRT
2014/2024 (Phase 3 is the ongoing review by the Department of State, National Security
Agency, and Inter-Agency Policy Committee). Phase 2 consisted of two tracks: sovereign
consultation and stakeholder engagement, which I describe in the following sub-sections
(Figure 12).
United States Columbia River Treaty 2014/
2024 Review - Basic Process Structure
Department of
State
Bonneville Power
Administration
Sovereign
Participation
Process
Confederated Tribes of
the Grand Ronde
(Govt-to-Govt Meetings)
Regional
Executive Team
Sovereign
Review Team
Federal CRT
Review Team
Additional Govtto-Govt
Meetings
Additional Govtto-Govt
Meetings
EcosystemBased Function
Work Group
State
Governments
Navigation
Work Group
Recreation
Work Group





Stakeholder
Engagement
Process
Interest Group
Presentations
Sovereign
Technical Team
Hydropower
Work Group
Tribes
US Army Corps of
Engineer
US Entity
Congressional
Delegation
Climate
Change Work
Group
Federal
Caucus
Inter-Agency
Policy Committee
Wildlife
Subwork Group
Idaho
(Boise, Sandpoint)
Power
Interests
Anadromous
Fish Subwork
Group
Oregon
(Boardman,
Portland)
Flood Risk
Interests
Cultural
Resources
Subwork Group
Navigation
Interests
Resident Fish
Subwork Group
Recreation
Interests
Water Supply
Subwork Group
Water Supply/
Irrigation
Interests
Sovereign Review Team Make-Up
Tribes:
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (representing Nez Perce Tribe, Confederated Tribes of
the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Warm Springs Reservation of
Oregon, and Yakama Nation)
Confederated Salish and Kootenai Tribes (representing the Salish Tribe and Kootenai Tribe)
Cowlitz Indian Tribe
Upper Columbia United Tribes (representing Coeur d'Alene Tribe, Kalispell Tribe of Indians, Spokane
Tribe of Indians, Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and Confederated Tribe of the Colville Reservation)
Upper Snake River Tribes (USRT; representing Burns Paiute Tribe, Fort McDermitt Paiute-Shoshone
Tribe, Shoshone-Paiute Tribes and Shoshone-Bannock Tribes)
Montana
(Eureka, Helena,
Libby, Kalispell)
Ecosystem
Interests
Water Quality
Subwork Group




States:
Idaho
Montana
Oregon
Washington
Public
Meetings









Washington
(Grand Coulee,
Clarkston, Olympia,
Pasco, Seattle,
Spokane,
Wenatchee, Yakima)
Webinar
Federal Agencies:
Army Corps of Engineers (Co-Chair)
Bonneville Power Administration (Co-Chair)
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Bureau of Reclamation
Environmental Protection Agency
Fish and Wildlife Service
National Marine Fisheries Service
National Park Service
US Geological Survey
Figure 12. Institutional map of US CRT 2014/2024 Review structure
198
6.1.1 Sovereign Participation Process
The Corps and BPA worked with a number of sovereign entities during the US
Review through the Sovereign Participation Process, which consisted of three parts, 1)
government-to-government meetings, 2) the Sovereign Review Team (SRT), and 3) the
Sovereign Technical Team (STT). Various sovereigns in the basin involved with the SRT
designed the Sovereign Participation Process over a six month period and finalized the
process approach in July 2011 with the adoption the “Columbia River Treaty 2014/2024
Review Sovereign Participation Process” document.
Government-to-government meetings took different forms with different types of
governments. The federal agencies (or “federal family”) met at two levels: the Regional
Executive Team (upper management) and Federal CRT Review Team (staff level).
Meetings with states were between the US Entity, its agencies, and the governor’s offices
of each state. The US Entity agencies also met with legislators at forums like the
Legislative Council on River Governance. Government-to-government meetings with the
Tribes were between the US Entity and tribal leadership. One tribe, the Confederated
Tribes of the Grand Ronde (CTGR), did not participate on the SRT or STT and engaged
with the US Entity via government-to-government meetings at the leadership and staff
levels. It requested to join the SRT and STT but that request was denied. My
conversations with US CRT 2014/2024 Review participants provided two different
reasons why that request was denied. Some attributed it to tension and conflict between
the CTRG and other tribes on the SRT/STT. Others said that the CTRG did not have
management authorities and responsibilities affected by the CRT and, therefore, should
199
not have the same seat at the table as the other tribes. I describe these participant views of
this issue later in this chapter.
The purpose of the SRT was to “help identify and study policy and technical
matters associated with the Treaty Review process” (United States Entity, 2013a, p. 1).
While the US Entity developed and delivered the US Regional Recommendation, the
SRT contributed to the language of the document as part of an effort to develop regional
consensus for the Recommendation. The SRT met from October 2010 through December
2013. The Treaty Coordinators chaired the SRT on behalf of the US Entity and also
represented the Corps, BPA, and their associated interests. The SRT also included
representatives from nine additional federal agency, five tribal representatives for 15 of
the Tribal Nations in the basin, and state representatives from Idaho, Montana, Oregon,
and Washington.10
The sovereigns represented on the SRT were also given the opportunity to
participate on the STT. The STT was tasked with developing the “study scope,
alternatives, alternative evaluation methodologies, alternative impact assessments, and
documentation of results” (United States Entity, 2013b, p. 1). These extensive technical
assessments examined changes in water flow under scenarios determined by the SRT and
STT. They also investigated how those modified flows would impact flood risk
management, hydropower, and ecosystem function as primary functions of river
management, along with other operating purposes for dams/reservoirs on the Columbia
River and its tributaries, such as navigation, irrigation, and recreation, (United States
10
While Utah, Wyoming, and Nevada technically have land that falls within the CRB the land and waters
are both very small and not impacted by CRT operations. Therefore they were not included in the US CRT
2014/2024 Review.
200
Entity, 2012). The STT met from February 2011 through October 2013. Within the STT
were several work groups and sub-work groups: 1) Climate Change Work Group, 2)
Cultural Resources Work Group , 3) Ecosystem-based Function Work Group, which
included the a) Anadromous Fish Sub-Work Group, b) Estuary Sub-Work Group, c)
Resident Fish Sub-Work Group, d) Water Quality Sub-Work Group, and e) Wildlife SubWork Group, 4) Navigation Work Group, 5) Recreation Work Group, and 6) Water
Supply Work Group. The Corps and BPA also worked on other technical studies on
hydro-regulation modeling, hydropower, flood risk management, economic impacts, and
environmental compliance.
In addition to these three tracks, the US Entity provided updates to the US
Department of State (DOS), the Pacific Northwest (PNW) Congressional Delegation, and
Inter-Agency Policy Committee throughout the US CRT 2014/2024 Review. These
updates included quarterly reports and meetings with various agency and congressional
staff. Towards the end of the Treaty review the US Entity also traveled to Washington
DC to meet with members of the PNW Congressional Delegation.
6.1.2 Stakeholder Engagement
While working with the SRT and STT, the US Review also engaged stakeholders
to help guide their technical studies and develop the US Regional Recommendation.
Stakeholders included the general public, hydropower interests, irrigation interests,
environmental groups, navigation interests, as well as some cities and industries. The US
Entity consulted with some experts from organizations such as the Mid-Columbia Public
Utility Districts (Chelan County PUD, Grant County PUD, and Douglas County PUD),
Idaho Power Company, Oregon State University, University of Washington, and the
201
Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership on technical studies. Outside of these select
organizations, most stakeholder interests engaged in the review through listening sessions
and open houses hosted by the US Entity at locations across the US portion of the basin
(Table 64) (United States Entity, 2012). Listening sessions were meetings where
participants gave input on what the technical studies should consider. Open houses were
meetings where the US Entity primarily reported study findings (United States Entity,
2013d, 2014b).
In addition to these efforts, the Corps and BPA gave presentations to over 60
groups to keep them updates on the technical studies and development of the US
Regional Recommendation. At some of these meetings, the two federal agencies also
solicited feedback on the studies and Recommendation. There were also two public
comment periods on draft versions of the US Regional Recommendation in the summer
of 2013. The US Entity delivered its recommendation to the Department of State in
December 2013. In the next section I describe the development and evolution of that
document.
Table 64. US CRT 2014/2024 Review Public Meetings
Listening
Sessions
SRT
Sponsored
Panel
Discussions
Listening
Sessions
2011
2011
2012
Open
Houses
Spring
2013
Open
Houses
Summer
2013
Roundtable
Discussions
Fall
2013
Solicit input from region
Provide SRT to meet with
and hear from various
stakeholder interests and
county commissioners
Give “Treaty 101”
presentation, share results
from Iteration 1 studies, and
solicit input for Iteration 2
Give “Treaty 101”
presentation, share results
from Iteration 2 studies, and
solicit input for Iteration 3
Explain Working Draft
Regional Recommendation
Explain Draft Regional
Recommendation
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
(2)
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Online Webinar
Yakima, WA
Wenatchee, WA
Spokane, WA
Seattle, WA
Pasco, WA
Olympia, WA
Clarkston, WA
City of Grand
Coulee, WA
Portland, OR
Boardman, OR
Missoula, MT
Libby, MT
Kalispell, MT
Helena, MT
Purpose
Eureka, MT
Date
Sandpoint, ID
Meeting
Type
Boise, ID
Location
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Host flood risk management,
navigation, and recreation
Topical
2011open houses as well as
X
Public
X
X
X
X
X
2013
climate change, ecosystem(6)
Meetings
based function, and water
quality technical workshops
Table 64 provides a list of the various public meetings hosted by the US Entity during its Treaty review and the locations for those meetings.
203
6.2 Development of the US Regional Recommendation
The US Entity released the Working Draft of the US Regional Recommendation
in late June 2013 with public comments due in August 2013. The US Entity released a
second draft, called the Draft US Regional Recommendation in late September to collect
additional feedback by late October. The US Entity, in consensus with the region,
delivered the Final US Regional Recommendation to the US Department of State on
December 13, 2013. The Final US Regional Recommendation consists of an introduction,
nine general principles, recommendation details (on the topics of hydropower, flood risk
management, ecosystem-based function, water supply, navigation, recreation, and climate
change), a recommended timeframe, and recommendations on seven domestic matters.
In the following subsections of my dissertation, I provide a narrative description
of the drafting and revising of the US Regional Recommendation. The public comments
submitted on the two drafts of the US Regional Recommendation, my interviews with
Review participants, publically available documents from the Review, my observations at
public meetings during the Review, and an analysis of the language included in the
various drafts of the Recommendations and serve as the basis of this narrative. In my
analysis of the Regional Recommendation language, I reviewed the documents for: 1) the
inclusion of new language, and 2) changes in language that give the document new
meaning (i.e., assert or clarify a view or position as opposed to improve the grammar of
the document). This analysis simply documents the changes. I provide an explanation of
why those changes were made in the “Case Study Discussion” section of this chapter.
204
6.2.1 Putting Pen to Paper: the Working Draft US Regional Recommendation
Development of the Regional Recommendation began in the fall of 2012. At that
time some members of the SRT started composing “perspectives” papers which laid out
their thoughts on what the Regional Recommendation should include. They shared these
perspectives papers with the rest of the SRT. Then in January 2013, the US Entity
solicited comments from stakeholders on hydropower, flood risk, ecosystem (fish and
wildlife and the environment), water supply (including irrigation and consumptive uses),
recreation, navigation, water quality, and climate change. The US Entity requested
comments by February 8, 2013 and that in their submissions stakeholders indicate the
relative importance of each topic they discuss in their comments. Twenty four groups
submitted comments.
With the sovereign perspectives papers and stakeholder comments, along with the
technical work completed by that time, the US Entity developed a draft outline of the
Regional Recommendation and presented it to the SRT in the spring of 2013. The SRT
then spent time revising the document prior to its public release as the Working Draft of
the US Regional Recommendation on June 27, 2013. While the SRT revised the US
Regional Recommendation in the spring of 2013, the US Entity hosted open houses
around the basin to present technical study results and collect additional stakeholder
input. After the release of the Working Draft, the US Entity hosted two webinars to
explain the document and to allow stakeholders the chance to comment verbally, in
addition to submitting written comments via the formal public comment process.
However, it did not accept formal comments during the webinar; rather it requested that
205
individuals and organizations submit all comments in writing. The comment period on
the Working Draft closed on August 16, 2013.
6.2.2 Recalibrating: the Draft US Regional Recommendation
As the public comment period on the Working Draft drew to a close, the US
Entity received two important sets of directions from the US Department of State (DOS).
One was that DOS only wanted a five page high level policy recommendation. The US
Entity (and therefore the sovereigns and stakeholders it was engaging) was operating
under a plan to deliver a five page high level policy recommendation, a 50 page
explanation of those policy recommendations, and 500 pages of technical appendices
with supporting information. as the US CRE 2014/2024 Review called this the “5-50-500
model.”
The second set of directions was to not release any more technical results to the
sovereigns and stakeholders involved in the Review. The reasoning was that once shared
outside of the US Entity, information was no longer protected and anyone could request
the information under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). The concern was that
Canada could gain access to the information, which would reduce the United States’
bargaining power, if the two countries entered negotiations. The US Entity requested that
it be able to share the summary results of the third iteration of technical studies to those
involved in the review and agreed to not release any of the finalized technical studies.
DOS agreed to this request.
With this new set of directions, the summary results of the technical studies, and
the public comments on the Working Draft, the US Entity worked with the SRT to revise
the language of the Regional Recommendation. During this time, the Deputy Assistant
206
Secretary for Western Hemisphere Affairs visited the US Pacific Northwest and met with
sovereigns and stakeholders. The US Department of State held separate meetings with the
tribes, power interests, ecosystem interests, and navigation, recreation and flood
management interests. Through these meetings the sovereigns and stakeholders shared
their concerns and asked questions. The meetings also provided an opportunity for DOS
to share its expectations and offer advice. DOS reminded the region that it wanted a high
level document as it would better enable DOS to negotiate if the US decided to negotiate
with Canada. DOS also recommended the region work towards developing a consensus
document as that would offer a better chance that the document would be accepted and
acted upon in Washington DC.
The US Entity released the Draft version of the Regional Recommendation on
September 20, 2013 for public comment through October 25, 2013. Based on the public
comments and SRT meetings, the US Entity revised the Regional Recommendation in a
number of ways (Table 65).
Table 65. Summary of Changes from Working Draft To Draft US Regional Recommendation
Section
Changes
 Insertion of language recognizing the region’s dependence on the
Columbia River and the need to “modernize” the Treaty to continue
Introduction
meeting various needs
 Expands upon explanation of sovereign and stakeholder engagement
conducted to develop the Regional Recommendation drafts
 Provides additional context and justification for goals through new
language that, 1) acknowledges benefits of the Treaty in terms of flood risk
management and hydropower generation, 2) documents the evolution of
river management since ratification of the Treaty, 3) recognizes efforts
taken to improve the health of ecosystem and notes that more work
through the Treaty is needed, 4) highlights how there is an “imbalance” in
the “equitable sharing of the downstream power benefits” that needs to be
Regional Goals
addressed, and 5) notes that with the shift to Called Upon, flood risk
management procedures need to be resilient
 Qualifies the recommendation to add ecosystem-based function as a third
primary purpose of the Treaty, noting that the recommendation “respects
the importance, complexity, and trade-offs of each of these many uses”
 Summarizes the regional goals at the end of the section
207
Section
General
Principles
Ecosystem-based
Function
Hydropower
Flood Risk
Management
Changes
 Adds three new principles, 1) “the health of the Columbia River ecosystem
should be a shared benefit” of both countries, 2) new costs and benefits
resulting from a modernized Treaty should be aligned with the appropriate
party (includes example that flood risk payments should be consistent with
national policies), and 3) inclusion of ecosystem-based function should not
hinder the objective of lowering US power costs and funding for
ecosystem-based function efforts should come from “a rebalancing of the
power benefits between the two countries or from other sources”
 Notes that a modernized Treaty should allow for the “integration of the best
available science” as opposed to “new scientific”
 Acknowledges that non-federal projects “will continue to meet their
responsibilities pursuant to their Federal Energy Regulatory Commission
license plans” in the discussion of how US projects/reservoirs will follow
the appropriate laws and legislation
 Specifies that the strategy for adapting to climate changes should not only
be resilient, adaptable, and flexible, but also “timely as conditions warrant”
 Specifies that stream flows from Canada contribute to ecosystem
improvement efforts
 Clarifies that adverse impacts to Tribal and First Nation cultural resources
should be addressed via the Federal Columbia River Power System
(FCRPS) Cultural Resources Program
 Strengthens language around recommendation that together the US and
Canada should pursue “restored fish passage and reintroduction of
anadromous fish on the main stem Columbia to Canadian spawning
grounds” and specifies that the joint program would “proceed on an
incremental basis beginning with a reconnaissance-level investigation”
 Notes that operations under a modernized Treaty should not interfere with
reintroduction of anadromous fish in other blocked areas (in addition to fish
passage, as mentioned in the Working Draft)
 Clarifies what is meant be “rebalancing” of power benefits by stating that
the US should “only provide benefits to Canada equivalent to one-half of
the actual US downstream power benefits received from coordinated
operations as compared to a non-coordinated operation”
 Adds “shifts in streamflow quantity and timing due to climate change” to the
list of things that should be considered in order to maintain an economical
and reliable power supply
 Revises the assertion that an acceptable level of flood risk is similar to the
current level to one that maintains that assertion unless a domestic flood
review process modifies the risk level
 Shifts from recommending the US determine Canada’s interest in joint
exploration of options for post-2024 flood risk management, including “the
possibility of using planned or assured Canadian storage” to simply
recommending the US pursue joint assessment of alternatives
 Changes recommendation of when Called Upon should be considered by
removing language about what should guide Canadian operations and
adding language that Called Upon should also be considered “when
needed during refill season to modify planned Canadian releases”
208
Section
Changes
 Notes that technical “studies indicate the potential” for “additional storage
of water in Canada during the fall and winter, and release in the spring and
summer”
Water Supply
 Clarifies and allocation through a future domestic process should “be
consistent with water rights, including tribal reserved rights and ecosystembased function”
 Adds that a modernized Treaty should also provide minimum flows to
Navigation
support navigation (not just maximum flows)
Recreation
 No substantive changes
 Adds language recommending the Treaty be modernized to not only
Climate Change
consider impacts of climate change but “allow for adaptive management” in
order “to better mitigate” those impacts
 Removes language recommending that the US evaluate other options such
as “starting from a clean slate” (i.e., termination) if the two countries are
Additional Matters
unable to reach an agreement on key principles by the summer of 2014
of Discussion/

Provides greater specificity recommending that a decision to negotiate
Recommendation
should be made by mid-2014 and negotiations completed no later than
Timeframe
2015 as opposed to asserting the need to “establish the period of
negotiation”
 Flood risk review - calls for review to consider if changes in flood risk could
“enhance spring and summer flow” as opposed to “provided greater
ecosystem flows”
 Water supply allocation - Clarifies that any additional spring and summer
flows be allocated and managed for “in-stream and out-of-stream
purposes”
 Assessment of Canadian Entitlement - No substantive changes
 Plan for post-2024 Treaty implementation - No substantive changes
Domestic Matters  Flood plain reconnection - Recognizes that flood plain reconnection could
be explored in other processes outside of the two listed processes
 Domestic advisory mechanism - Adds that DOS not only form but also fund
an advisory mechanism as well as involved a “broad cross-section of
regional parties”
 Composition of the US Entity - Reorders recommendation from 6th to 7th in
list; moves away from recommending the US Entity add a federal agency
to represent ecosystem towards a more general statement that
membership of the US Entity should be reviewed to see what would be
best for implementing the Treaty post-2024
Table 65 summarizes the changes in language from the Working Draft to Draft version of the US
Regional recommendation. I created this table based on a comparison of the Working Draft and
Draft versions of the US Regional Recommendation. It includes a summary of changes in
different components in the document.
6.2.3 Working Towards Consensus: the Final US Regional Recommendation
The public comment period on the Draft Regional Recommendation closed on
October, 25, 2013. Table 66 contains a summary of comment themes provided on the
Draft US Regional Recommendation. Most comments involve stakeholder groups
advocating for clarification and/or strengthening of the language around their particular
209
interests. For example, environmental interests advocate for strengthening the US
Regional Recommendation position on incorporating ecosystem-based function and fish
passage into the document. Likewise hydropower interests petition that reducing the
Canadian Entitlement should be the primary priority for a modernized Treaty. Other
comments argue for the removal or decreased emphasis on certain aspects of the
document. For instance, irrigation interests advocated for removing language about
adding ecosystem-based function as a third primary operating purpose under the Treaty.
The US Entity considered these comments as it revised the document with the SRT.
Table 66. Public comment themes on Draft US Regional Recommendation
Environmental Interests
 Strengthen ecosystem-based function and fish passage restoration language - Support
recommendations regarding incorporating ecosystem-based function as primary purpose of
the Treaty, exploring the potential for restoration of fish passage, and considering climate
change in future river operations. Request to strengthen that language.
 Change references to “hydropower” to “power production” - Change reference to “hydropower”
to “power production” to incorporate the availability of alternative power sources throughout
the Columbia River basin.
 Do not link Canadian Entitlement and ecosystem-based function - Caution against linking a
reduction in the Canadian Entitlement to ecosystem-based function.
Flood Risk Management Interests
 Consider the impacts to infrastructure & levee accreditation - Consider the cost and
implications of higher flows on the ability to manage flood risks and the infrastructure flood risk
management interests must protect, particularly in the context of reviewing flood risk level
policy in the basin.
Irrigation Interest Themes
 Remove ecosystem-based function as third primary purpose - Do not add ecosystem-based
function as a third primary purpose of the Treaty or allow pursuit of it to adversely impact any
other authorized purposes in the basin.
 Explicitly include irrigation in the Regional Recommendation - Explicitly include irrigation in the
Regional Recommendation either as a separate section from Water Supply or with more
detailed references within the Water Supply section.
 Acknowledge importance of irrigation - Add language acknowledging the current and future
economic significance of irrigation in the basin to Recommendation.
 Recognize state authority in water law - Recognize that states have authority to allocate and
manage water pursuant to State law.
 Ensure representation of all water rights interests - Ensure that all water rights interests are
represented in any future water allocation decisions and processes.
 Assert U.S. definitions of effective use - Explicitly state that “effective use” only applies to the
eight reservoirs authorized for system flood control.
210
Local Governments
 Address lack of local government consultation - Address lack of federally-obligated
consultation of local (county) governments. Make up of SRT is not appropriate.
 Strengthen call for increased water supply - Strengthen calls for increased water supply and
recognize irrigation explicitly within the Recommendation.
 Do not address domestic issues in the Treaty - Do not address domestic issues such as
ecosystem-based function in the Treaty.
Navigation Interests
 Include navigation safety, efficiency, and federal navigation project concerns - Include
discussion of navigation and river flows in terms safety and efficiency as well as potential
impacts to federal navigation projects.
 Acknowledge importance of navigation - Add language acknowledging the current and future
economic significance of navigation on the Columbia and Snake Rivers.
 Consider various impacts of potential CRB Flood Risk Policy Review - Add reference to the
need to consider the potential impacts to navigation, infrastructure, and other river uses in the
discussion of a potential review of Columbia River Basin flood risk level policy.
Power Interests
 Prioritize reduction in Canadian Entitlement - Make reduction of the Canadian Entitlement the
primary priority and change the order of presentation to hydropower, flood risk, then
ecosystem.
 Satisfy General Principles collectively - Note in Recommendation that the General Principles
should be taken as a group and collectively satisfied.
 Account for existing ecosystem-based function programs - Account for existing programs
benefiting ecosystem-based functions (rather than just acknowledge).
 Use best available science and cost-benefit assessments in ecosystem pursuits - Base any
changes for ecosystem-based function on best available science and a cost/benefit
assessment, particularly any increase in spring and summer flows.
 Clarify General Principle #8 - Use of “funding” in General Principle #8 should be applied only
to “other sources” and not suggest savings be used for ecosystem measures.
 Remove fish passage reconnaissance study recommendation - Delete recommendation for
reconnaissance study of fish passage from as it is a domestic issue requiring Congressional
authorization/appropriation.
 Re-insert language on timeline for negotiations - Re-insert language on timeline for
negotiations with Canada and consideration of alternative options.
 Follow federal flood risk management payment policies - Note that payment for flood risk
management should be consistent with national flood risk funding policy.
 Do not impact existing water rights - Add language stating that any flow changes should not
impact existing water rights.
 Address transmission issues related to Canadian Entitlement delivery - Add consideration of
transmission issues of Canadian Entitlement delivery through the Puget Sound area.
 Maintain current levels of flood risk - Maintain current levels of flood risk.
This table contains a summary of themes I compiled in my reading of the public comments
submitted for the Draft US Regional Recommendation. The original comments are available at:
http://www.bpa.gov/applications/publiccomments/CommentList.aspx?ID=207
As the US Entity and SRT revised the document, the US Entity also continued
meeting with stakeholder groups, particularly the hydropower interests, to determine
211
what language they would accept. The US Entity held similar conversations with SRT
members at SRT meetings. This was done in an attempt to obtain regional consensus on
the Regional Recommendation as advised by DOS. Various parties in the region
understood that it was in their best interest to present DOS with a consensus document
supported by all interests in the Pacific Northwest. Without consensus, it was unlikely
DOS and the Administration would be willing to touch what one US CRT 2014/2024
Review participant referred to as a political “hot potato.”
In November 2013, some sovereigns and stakeholders requested additional time
to further refine the document and work on strengthening consensus in the region.
However, the US Entity made the decision to deliver the Final Regional
Recommendation by the end of 2013. A reason mentioned multiple times during my
interviews, was that hydropower interests pressured the US Entity to release the draft by
the end of 2013 in order to give DOS enough time to make a decision before September
16, 2014--the earliest date the country could give notice of termination.
While finalizing the US Regional Recommendation, Congress held two hearings
on the CRT. The Senate Committee on Energy and Natural Resources hosted one hearing
in Washington DC on November 7, 2013. The House Natural Resources Committee held
another in Pasco, Washington on December 9, 2013. At these hearings, the US Entity,
Tribes, and various stakeholder groups commented on the CRT and answered Senators’
and Representatives’ questions.
With a tenuous consensus holding the region together in support of the document,
the US Entity delivered the Final US Regional Recommendation to DOS on December
13, 2013. Some aspects of the document, such as the sections on climate change,
212
recreation, and some domestic matters did not change much if at all (Table 67). Other
sections included a number of revisions. One major change from the draft to the final
version was the re-ordering of the “Recommendation Details” subsections. Ecosystembased function moved from first to third position after hydropower and flood risk
management (the two original authorized purposes of the Treaty). Other highlights of the
changes include: 1) a new general principle that “all operations should be based on the
best available science, and, to the extent practicable, measurable outcomes” (p. 3), 2)
instructions that all principles are to be taken together, 3) language recognizing the
importance of irrigation, water supply, and navigation to the region, 4) a note that a
modernized Treaty should avoid operations that would result in lower system flexibility,
5) an explicit definition of water supply, and 6) and reintroduction of Working Draft
language that implies the US should consider alternatives to modernizing the Treaty (i.e.,
termination) if the US and Canada cannot agree on certain provisions by 2015. I provide
a full analysis of the changes between the Draft and Final versions of the US Regional
Recommendation in Table 67.
The delivery of the US Regional Recommendation on December 13, 2013 meant
the end of the SRT and STT process as well as the end of Phase 2 of the Treaty Review.
The US Entity continued to finalize its technical studies as the US CRT 2014/2024
Review shifted to new a phase. Sovereign participation also continued through
government-to-government meetings.
213
Table 67. Summary of changes from Draft to Final US Regional Recommendation
Section
Changes
 Condenses explanation of development of Regional Recommendation to
Introduction
one sentence about the collaboration and consultation with sovereigns and
stakeholders
 Adds language specifically calling out that the Treaty does not identify
ecosystem considerations despite the fact that the importance of
ecosystem has “long been recognized and valued”
 Includes a new example of Treaty flood risk management benefits to both
Regional Goal
the US and Canada
 Clarifies what water supply entails (irrigation, municipal, and industrial use)
 Acknowledges the need to recognize and implement other authorized
purposes in the basin outside of hydropower generation, ecosystem-based
function, and flood risk management
 Adds direction that the “General Principles are to be taken together with
the intent that all of the interests addressed herein be improved”
 Introduces a new principle (to increase total number to 9 principles) that “all
operations should be based on the best available science, and, to the
extent practicable, measurable outcomes”
 Notes that the health of the ecosystem should be a shared cost, in addition
General
to a shared benefit for both countries
Principles
 Removes example of flood risk management previously included to
demonstrate the alignment of Treaty costs to the appropriate party
 Revises final principle to more directly state that “implementation of
ecosystem-based function to be compatible with rebalancing the
entitlement and reducing US power costs” as well as removes
specifications on how that should be done
 Moved to be third section in “Recommendation details”
 Merges points one and three from the Draft version and changes “expand
upon existing Treaty flow augmentation operations” to “continue existing…”

Adds that after conducting a joint reconnaissance level investigation of fish
Ecosystem-based
passage and reintroduction of anadromous fish the program should
Function
“continue with implementation actions”
 Incorporates provision that “All such federal actions at the Chief Joseph
and Grand Coulee projects are subject to congressional authorization and
approval”
 Moved to be first section in “Recommendation details”
 Adds that a modernized Treaty should avoid operations that would result in
Hydropower
lower system flexibility (in addition to system reliability)
 Includes a footnote explaining what flexibility is and its role in integrating
variable renewable energy sources like wind and solar
 Moved to be second section in “Recommendation details”
 Provides an example of what ecosystem-based function might mean in a
Flood Risk
modified storage reservation diagram (“dry year operating strategies”)
Management
 Resurrects Working Draft language about how any payments for flood risk
management should be consistent with national policy
 Defines out-of-stream uses of water as “irrigation and municipal/industrial
uses
Water Supply
 Explains the past, present, and future importance of irrigation in the basin
and asserts that operation under a modernized Treaty should recognized
irrigation as an important authorized purpose in the basin
 Notes the “national economic significance” of navigation
Navigation
 Asserts that operation under a modernized Treaty should recognized
214
Section
Changes
navigation as an important authorized purpose in the basin
 Revises the statements on minimum and maximum flows to recommend
that flows “do not undermine safe navigation, efficient cargo movement, or
the ability of navigation infrastructure to be maintained”
Recreation
 No substantive changes
Climate Change
 No substantive changes
 Reintroduces the Working Draft statement that “other options to create a
Recommendation
modernized post-2024 Treaty should be evaluated” if the US and Canada
Timeframe
“are unable to achieve agreement on key aspects of a modernized Treaty
by 2015”
 Flood risk review - Note that if the US undertakes a flood risk review,
“Potential impacts to other river uses and infrastructure such as navigation,
bridges and other transportation features, hydropower, irrigation,
recreation, fish and wildlife, and cultural resources also will be evaluated
and addressed”
 Water supply allocation - Defines out-of-stream uses of water as “irrigation
and municipal/industrial uses; notes that all water rights interests should be
represented any water allocation process; recognizes that “the states have
Domestic Matters
authority to allocate and manage water pursuant to state law and
consistent with other applicable law”
 Assessment of Canadian Entitlement - No substantive changes
 Plan for post-2024 Treaty implementation - No substantive changes
 Flood plain reconnection - No substantive changes
 Domestic advisory mechanism - No substantive changes
 Composition of the US Entity - No substantive changes
I created this table based on a comparison of the Draft and Final versions of the US Regional
Recommendation. It includes a summary of changes in different portions of the document.
6.3 Next steps
After delivering the US Regional Recommendation, the US moved into a new
phase of the review of the Treaty. The National Security Agency convened the InterAgency Policy Committee (IPC) to conduct the Circular 175 process to make a
“determination of national interest” and subsequent decision on whether to terminate,
modify, or continue with the Treaty. While the review moved to this next phase, the US
Entity agencies, BPA and the Corps, worked to finalize the various US CRT 2014/2024
Review technical studies.
The US review of the Treaty currently sits at this stage. Various interests and
sovereigns in the basin have petitioned the Administration for action in writing (such as
215
letters signed by the Pacific Northwest Congressional Delegation) as well as via meetings
with officials in Washington DC. At present (at the time of publishing) there is no
timeline for a final decision or action by the US Department of State. Most recently, the
PNW Congressional Delegation sent a letter to President Obama and the US Department
of State in April 2015 to push for action. The US Department of State responded to
Senator Pat Murray of Washington on May 20, 2015. In that letter, the Department of
State, speaking on behalf of the President, acknowledged the US Regional
Recommendation and noted that the Department has continued to consult with interests in
the US portion of the basin. The letter also alluded to meetings between the Department
of State, US Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ), and staff of the PNW
Congressional Delegation in February and May 2015, in which the Department of State
briefed the Congressional Delegation on its deliberations. Based on the Regional
Recommendation and its internal review, the Department of State said in the letter, “We
have decided to include flood risk mitigation, ecosystem-based function, and hydropower
generation interests in the draft US negotiation position. We hope to approach Canada
soon to begin discussions on modernizations of the Treaty.” (p. 1). Thus, the letter
implies a decision, though it does not offer when the US might officially notify Canada of
its decision or act on that decision.
6.4 Water GPA Results
With an understanding of the US CRT 2014/2024 Review and the evolution of the
text of the US Regional Recommendation, I next apply Water Governance Process
Assessment (Water GPA) to the review process. First, I summarize who participated in
the study and my methods for data collection. Second, I report the results of my survey
216
and interviews. The survey results highlight the scores participants gave the categories of
the process (accountability, information, and inclusivity), the scores for the US Regional
Recommendation itself, and the list of byproducts the study participants identified as
having emerged, increased, or decreased as a result of the process. I also describe the
findings from analysis of the semi-structured interviews focusing on: 1) analysis of
context (as that was not included in the survey), 2) additional depth and nuance on the
other three categories, and 3) specific examples of byproducts from the process. I further
discuss the Water GPA results and their implications (such as lessons learned), from the
surveys and interviews, in the following section titled, “Discussion.”
6.4.1 Study Participants
I interviewed twenty-two participants of the US CRT 2014/2024 Review, of
whom twenty completed the survey evaluation portion of the study (Table 68). How the
interviewees participated in the US CRT 2014/2024 Review varied. Following my
stratified, quota sampling approach, I made sure to survey and interview participants
from every major aspect of the review process, in order to capture a complete picture of
the process (Table 69). Twenty-eight participants completed the survey. Different
participants joined the review at various points in the process (Table 70). All those who
completed the survey were involved with the US CRT 2014/2024 Review when the US
Entity delivered the US Regional Recommendation to the Department of State in 2013
and many still engage in Treaty-related discussions today.
217
4
State
Government
8




Idaho
Montana
Oregon
Washington
3
3
Stakeholders
Federal Government
Number of
Surveys
Native American Tribes
Table 68. Sampling approach for the US 2014/2024 CRT Review case study
Number of
Affiliations
Interviewees
 Bonneville Power Administration (Lead Agency)
 US Army Corps of Engineers (Lead Agency)
 US Environmental Protection Agency
 US Forest Service
 US Fish and Wildlife Service
6
 US Geological Survey
 US Bureau of Indian Affairs
 US National Marine Fisheries Service
 US National Park Service
 US Bureau of Reclamation
 US Department of the Interior
 Cowlitz Tribe
 Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission (Yakama,
Warm Springs, Umatilla, and Nez Perce tribes)
 Confederated Salish & Kootenai Tribes (Bitterroot Salish,
the Pend d’Oreille and the Kootenai tribes)
 Upper Columbia United Tribes (Coeur d'Alene Tribe,
Kalispel Tribe of Indians, Kootenai Tribe of Idaho and the
3
Spokane Tribe of Indians with the Confederated Tribes of
the Colville Reservation)
 Upper Snake River Tribes (Burns Paiute Tribe, Fort
McDermitt Paiute-Shoshone Tribe, Shoshone-Bannock
Tribes of the Fort Hall Reservation, and Shoshone-Paiute
Tribes of the Duck Valley Reservation)
 Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde





Power interests
Irrigation interests
Navigation interests
Environmental interests
Flood risk management interests
10
13
Total
22
28
In this table I list out the organizations and agencies who participated in the US CRT 2014/2024
Review and how many in each category I interviewed and surveyed for my analysis. Sources for
identifying potential participants include SRT and STT Rosters, public comments on the Working
Draft and Draft versions of the Regional Recommendations, public comments received at other
points during the US CRT Review.
218
Table 69. Type of Participant Involvement in the US CRT 2014/2024 Review
Number of Participants Number of Participants
Type of Involvement
(Interviews)
(Surveys)
Lead agency
2
3
Tribal government-to-government
3
4
consultation
Sovereign Review Team
11
12
Sovereign Technical Team
2
3
Federal Caucus
6
8
Stakeholder engagement
10
13
In this table I indicate the number of my study participants who participated in different
components of the US CRT 2014/2024 Review in order to demonstrate how my surveys and
interviews represent a wide range of views. Please note that a study participant can fall into
multiple categories. For example, participants for example the lead agency participants are also
part of the federal caucus.
Table 70. When Participants Joined US CRT 2014/2024 Review
Number of Participants
Number of Participants
When Participant Joined Review
(Interviews)
(Surveys)
5
Pre-Phase 2
4
12
Start of Phase 2 (Summer/Fall 2010)
8
3
2011
2
6
2012
6*
2
2013
2*
28
Total
22
This table indicates when study participants joined the US CRT 2014/2024 Review
*In each of these categories one individual joined the Review late, but his/her organization was
involved from the start of Phase 2.
6.4.2 Methodology Overview
The semi-structured interviews lasted between 20 minutes and 2 hours, depending
on participant availability. The average length of interviews was just under an hour. As
part of the interviews, I asked participants to explain or provide examples for select
survey responses in order to compile a richer assessment of the process categories and
outcomes. I also asked in what ways did each of the process categories impact the content
of the decision or their view of it, as well as if there were any other factors that they
believed influenced the outcomes of the decision making process. I recorded the
interviews using a digital voice recorder then transcribed them into a text document for
analysis. I coded and analyzed the transcribed interviews qualitatively, both deductively
219
using the Water Governance Process Assessment categories and inductively identifying
emergent themes. I used the QSR NVivo software to manually code my transcripts.
In the survey, I asked participants to score the degree to which they agreed or
disagreed with statements for various aspects of the process characteristics:
accountability, information, and inclusivity. Participants scored the statements on a Likert
scale of one (strongly disagree) to five (strongly agree). Each statement represents one
aspect or category of the three process characteristics identified by the Water Governance
Process Assessment (Water GPA). Likewise participants also scored the degree to which
they agreed or disagreed with statements about the review decision, in this case the US
Regional Recommendation. I compiled the paper surveys completed by the participants
into an electronic spreadsheet for analysis. I provide a more detailed explanation of my
methods in Chapter 3. Below I present the mean scores for all 28 survey respondents as
well as counts of the positive (agree and strongly agree), negative (disagree and strongly
disagree) and neutral scores to show the distribution of the scores. If apparent, I point out
trends in the responses. Following my presentation of the survey results, I share the
results of my qualitative analysis of the interviews for each category. For example, I
present survey scores for accountability and then my analysis of what the interviewees
said about accountability.
6.4.3 Accountability
In the Water GPA, I define accountability as “the organization and atmosphere of
the process designed to produce a legitimate decision.” Accountability includes concepts
such as transparency, fairness, rule of law, leadership, responsiveness, the scope of the
decision making process, who holds decision authority, etc. On this portion of the survey,
220
views on the accountability items varied widely (Table 71). A majority of respondents
felt that the review followed the appropriate laws (23 out of 27). Around two-thirds of
participants felt that the representatives participating in the review represented their
constituents’ interests (16 of 27) and that the review fulfilled its legal obligations (18 of
27).
Table 71. US CRT 2014/2024 Review accountability scores
Distribution of Responses
Category
Mean
Disagree Neutral
Agree
The review was sufficiently transparent
2.87
12
5
9
The review tasks/objectives were clearly
3.30
7
8
12
specified
Total
26
27
Criteria used for how decisions would be
made were clearly specified
2.67
14
8
5
27
The degree to which decision authority would
be shared was clear
3.15
12
3
12
27
3.93
3
1
23
27
3.63
3
6
18
27
The review was procedurally fair/just
2.77
11
8
7
26
Representatives of the public and interest
groups represented their constituents’
interests appropriately
3.44
5
6
16
27
To the best of your knowledge, the review
followed the appropriate laws
To the best of your knowledge, the review
fulfilled its legal obligations
The lead agency of the Treaty review was
3.30
5
7
13
25
responsive to review participants
This table presents the mean scores and response counts for the different survey questions
related aspects of accountability in the US CRT 2014/2024 Review. Survey participants marked
whether they strongly disagreed (assigned value = 1), disagreed (assigned value = 2), were
neutral (assigned value = 3), agreed (assigned value = 4), or strongly agreed (assigned value =
5) with each statement. A higher mean score indicates higher overall agreement with the
statement. I compiled the “strongly disagreed” and “disagreed” as well as the “strongly agreed”
and “agreed” counts.
For several aspects of accountability, the survey results show that there is not
agreement among respondents on the quality of accountability in the decision making
process. For example, half of the respondents disagreed that the criteria used for how
decisions would be made were clearly specified in the review (12 of 25) and responded
that the lead agency (the US Entity) was responsive to review participants (13 of 25).
221
There is an even split in number of responses that disagreed (12 participants of 27) or
agreed (12 of 27) that the degree to which decision authority would be shared was clear.
Likewise responses as to whether the review was procedurally fair/just are somewhat
evenly distributed between those who disagreed (11 of 26), agreed (8 of 26), or were
neutral (7 of 26).
To investigate this variation in responses, I separated the responses into two
groups, sovereigns and stakeholders (Table 72 and Table 73). I use the US Entity
delineation of who is considered a sovereign or stakeholder. Sovereigns are federal
agencies, state governments, and Tribes. Stakeholders include everyone else, such as
interest groups, hydropower utilities, and universities. Fifteen participants affiliated with
sovereigns and 13 stakeholders completed the survey. I chose to split the surveys into
these two categories because this divide between sovereigns and stakeholders was a
salient theme in both the survey open response questions and interviews. I also
hypothesized that because stakeholders and sovereigns participated in different
components of the decision making process they might have different experiences and
thus different views.
Examining the responses this way helps account for some of the variation in
scores. A majority of stakeholders (8 of 12) disagreed that the review was sufficiently
transparent. Likewise, the majority of stakeholders also did not view the review process
as fair or just (7 of 12) (Table 72). In fact, no stakeholder thought the process was fair or
just (5 of 12 stakeholders were neutral on the issue). Half of sovereigns (7 of 14) agreed
that the process was sufficiently transparent and procedurally fair/just while the other half
disagreed (4 of 14) or was neutral (3 of 14). Most sovereigns felt that the lead agency (US
222
Entity) was responsive to review participants (9 of 14) and that the representatives of the
public and interest groups fairly represented their constituents interests (11 of 15) (Table
73). Stakeholder views were much more mixed on those two factors with no clear
majority view (Table 72).
Table 72. Stakeholder accountability scores for the US CRT 2014/2024 Review
Distribution of Responses
Category
Mean
Disagree Neutral
Agree
The review was sufficiently transparent
2.50
8
2
2
The review tasks/objectives were clearly
3.00
3
6
3
specified
Total
12
12
Criteria used for how decisions would be
made were clearly specified
2.67
6
4
2
12
The degree to which decision authority would
be shared was clear
3.25
4
2
6
12
4.08
0
1
11
12
3.75
0
4
8
12
The review was procedurally fair/just
2.33
7
5
0
12
Representatives of the public and interest
groups represented their constituents’
interests appropriately
3.08
4
3
5
12
To the best of your knowledge, the review
followed the appropriate laws
To the best of your knowledge, the review
fulfilled its legal obligations
The lead agency of the Treaty review was
3.04
3
4
4
11
responsive to review participants
This table presents the mean scores and response counts for STAKEHOLDER participants in the
US CRT 2014/2024 Review on the topic of accountability. Survey participants marked whether
they strongly disagreed (assigned value = 1), disagreed (assigned value = 2), were neutral
(assigned value = 3), agreed (assigned value = 4), or strongly agreed (assigned value = 5) with
each statement. A higher mean score indicates higher overall agreement with the statement. I
compiled the “strongly disagreed” and “disagreed” as well as the “strongly agreed” and “agreed”
counts.
223
Table 73. Sovereign accountability scores for the US CRT 2014/2024 Review
Distribution of Responses
Category
Mean
Disagree Neutral
Agree
The review was sufficiently transparent
3.17
4
3
7
The review tasks/objectives were clearly
3.53
4
2
9
specified
Total
14
15
Criteria used for how decisions would be
made were clearly specified
2.67
8
4
3
15
The degree to which decision authority would
be shared was clear
3.07
8
1
6
15
3.80
3
0
12
15
3.53
3
2
10
15
The review was procedurally fair/just
3.14
4
3
7
14
Representatives of the public and interest
groups represented their constituents’
interests appropriately
3.73
1
3
11
15
To the best of your knowledge, the review
followed the appropriate laws
To the best of your knowledge, the review
fulfilled its legal obligations
The lead agency of the Treaty review was
3.50
2
3
9
14
responsive to review participants
This table presents the mean scores and response counts for SOVEREIGN participants in the US
CRT 2014/2024 Review on the topic of accountability. Survey participants marked whether they
strongly disagreed (assigned value = 1), disagreed (assigned value = 2), were neutral (assigned
value = 3), agreed (assigned value = 4), or strongly agreed (assigned value = 5) with each
statement. A higher mean score indicates higher overall agreement with the statement. I
combined the “strongly disagreed” and “disagreed” as well as the “strongly agreed” and “agreed”
counts.
The survey accountability scores reveal some weaknesses of the US CRT
2014/2024 Review. A majority of respondents either disagreed or were neutral that the
review tasks/objectives, criteria used for making decisions, as well as if/how decision
authority would be shared were clearly specified during the process (Table 71). The
participant’s statements during the interviews shed some light on what happened and why
s/he disagreed or were uncertain in these areas.
Transparency
One accountability component, or metric, of the Water GPA is transparency. I
asked interviewees if they felt the review was sufficiently transparent and why or why
not. My interviews revealed two barriers to transparency in the US CRT 2014/2024
224
Review. First, the structure of the review, specifically the difference between stakeholder
and sovereign engagement, led to the lack of transparency. Stakeholders expressed
disappointment and frustration over not being able to participate and/or observe in SRT
and STT meetings. A second barrier often mentioned by the interviewees was the request
by the US Department of State for the US Entity to not release any more technical
information, including the final technical reports which were originally intended to be
appendices to the US Regional Recommendation.
Not all comments regarding transparency were negative. Several interviewees
sympathized with the fact that the US Department of State instructed the US Entity to not
release the finalized technical studies in order to improve its potential negotiating
position. Some participants were frustrated that they could not access this information,
but at the same time understanding of the situation. Most of those involved with the SRT
also voiced an appreciation for the transparency of the Sovereign Participation Process
and the ability to work together in developing the technical studies and US Regional
Recommendation. Looking forward, those individuals who discussed Phase 3 of the
Treaty review process and potential future negotiations voiced concern that transparency
has and will likely continue to decrease as the US Department of State and National
Security Council contemplate their decision.
Scope
The central decision of the US CRT 2014/2024 Review was whether or not to
recommend the US terminate, modify, or continue with the Treaty post-2024. However,
two challenges emerged in terms of defining the scope of the Treaty review: 1) what did
the Department of State want? and 2) what is Treaty-related versus a domestic matter?
225
In regards to the first challenge, it was not clear what the Department of State
wanted in the Regional Recommendation until mid-2013, three years into Phase 2 of the
Treaty review. Without a vision of what the Department of State wanted, it was difficult
to direct the Treaty review efforts towards a more tangible goal. To address this issue the
US Entity worked with the sovereigns in late 2010 and early 2011 to develop the
Sovereign Participation Process document to guide sovereign engagement and pursued
the “5-50-500 model” as the deliverable. However, they abandoned the 5-50-500 model
when the Department of State advised that it only wanted a five-page high level policy
recommendation. SRT members and the lead agency participants voiced appreciation for
the times when the US Department of State offered guidance about what it was looking
for in a recommendation in 2013. However, a parallel theme of those comments was a
desire that the Department of State offer input sooner in the process. One SRT member
shared the following recommendation for future basin decision making processes:
Be clear about what you want to produce, so you don't go down all these
rabbit trails. Just be really clear on what the product is. Actually, we wrote
the Regional Recommendation, hat was written in four weeks or
something like that--after three and a half years of talking and stuff. - SRT
member
The second challenge related to the scope of the US CRT 2024/2024 Review
centered on the question “what is a Treaty-related issue and what is a domestic matter
outside the purview of the US CRT 2014/2024 Review?” In other words determine what
is linked to Treaty operations and what is something the US (or Canada) could and/or
should address within its own borders. Different participants of the Treaty review had
different views of what is a Treaty-related or domestic matter. For example, the Tribes,
environmental interests, and some federal agencies view salmon restoration efforts, such
226
as fish passage and reintroduction (aspects of ecosystem-based function), as a Treatyrelated issue. The power and irrigation interests do not. The power interests in particular
view the CRT as an agreement on how to manage transboundary flows for two purposes,
hydropower generation and flood risk management, and therefore felt that those are the
two Treaty-related issues the Regional Recommendation should focus on. Another area
of disagreement was whether a reassessment of flood risk in the basin fell within the
purview of the US CRT 2014/2024 Review. The Corps stated that it did not have the
authority to conduct that assessment as part of the Treaty review, while the tribes argued
that it did. The US Entity and US Regional Recommendation attempted to address this
issue by including domestic issues as a separate section within the document. This
provided an opportunity for the region to comment on issues outside of the
terminate/modify/continue decision but draws some distinction between domestic and
Treaty-related issues. Thus, groups were happy that an official document recognized
those positions, though depending on how different interviewees interpreted the
document, those domestic matters may or may not have the same level of commitment on
follow through as the Treaty-related points.
Decision criteria
Related to transparency and scope is defining the criteria upon which the decision
will be made. Mirroring the survey results, the predominant theme was a lack of
understanding of how the region would make a recommendation on the future of the
Treaty. Both stakeholders and sovereigns were unsure of what the criteria for the decision
were. One stakeholder said:
I don't think there was ever a time where the decision making process was
revealed to the region, rather it was, ‘Here's the list of who was on the
227
Sovereign Review Team. These people are meeting. They will be
developing the Regional Recommendation after receiving public input and
having all of their private closed door meetings.’ There were no metrics
revealed. There were no decision making structures revealed. These folks
got into a closed room and had their conversations and then all would be
revealed to the region later. No there were no criteria ever revealed.
- US CRT 2014/2024 stakeholder participant (navigation interest)
In mid-2013, a new criterion for the decision emerged: the need for a consensus
document. The criterion for a successful Regional Recommendation was that the
document be one that all parties in the region could support. Without the support of the
entire region, it was unlikely that the US Department of State would consider taking
action on the Treaty. The hope was that since everyone wanted something from the
Treaty review and resulting Regional Recommendation, they were less likely to lobby
against the US Regional Recommendation as that would diminish their chances of
achieving their own goals. To develop a consensus document the region had to: 1) keep
the language at a high policy level and not include much detail, and 2) compromise on
various recommendations.
Sharing of decision authority
How much decision authority the US Entity intended to share was also unclear to
many participants. The Sovereign Participation Process document developed by the SRT
to structure sovereign engagement includes a principle that states that the US Entity
“retains [the] authority to make a recommendation to the US Department of State. In the
event of non-consensus, each sovereign party may exercise their own authorities to make
recommendations of their own” (p. 1). There was an understanding that the US Entity
would write the US Regional Recommendation based on input from the Sovereign
Participation Process and stakeholder engagement process. However, it was not clear
228
how much influence the input would have. As one SRT member noted, “It wasn't quite a
vote, it wasn't a democracy. It wasn't everybody vote on us. It was okay we [the US
Entity] listened now we're going to do what we're going to do.” At some stages of the
process, stakeholders were also under the perception that the Regional Recommendation
was an SRT document, not an US Entity document. The primary recommendation from
interviewees on this topic for future processes was to increase the decision authority
shared for a true collaborative process.
Procedurally fair/just
Interviewees did not have much to say about whether the process was fair and/or
just. Some commented that the lack of transparency in the process made it seem
superficial, and therefore less fair. A few interviewees also commented on the exclusion
of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde from the SRT/STT and how that was an
unjust and unfair aspect of the process.
Leadership
In my examination of the interview transcripts, I initially focused on how
responsive the review lead (the US Entity in this case study) was to participants.
However, as I coded the text, I discovered that equally, if not more important to
participants, was who led the review. Both stakeholders and sovereigns were unhappy
that the US Entity was the process lead. Their frustration centered on the fact that the US
Entity wore “two hats” in the US Treaty Review. The Corps and BPA tried to act as both
the “neutral” convener of the process as well as the federal agency representing flood risk
management and hydropower in the various Treaty review conversations. Stakeholders
229
did not like this structure because they felt that as the process leads, the US Entity
agencies could not represent their constituencies’ interests well. One stakeholder shared:
They should have been representing their own customers’ interests…at the
very beginning they said, "We're in charge of this outreach activity, and
we can't be proponents of anything." They are proponents of things, they
have customers and they have to protect their customers’ interests.”
-Hydropower interest
On the flip side, this setup frustrated sovereigns who felt the US Entity was overly
biased in favor of hydropower and flood risk management interests. Even the two lead
agencies themselves found this balancing act difficult and not in their best interest. A
representative from a US Entity agency shared:
We had a very hard time representing both our own view, because we
didn't think anyone else was on the SRT representing it as strongly, and
yet, we also felt the obligation to be representing the entire region and to
be neutral. In that sense, from our organization’s perspective, it was tough
to be accountable to our stakeholders and be regionally neutral. - US
Entity agency representative (process lead)
When interviewees mentioned this problem, I asked if they had a suggestion of
who might be better process lead or convener for future decision making processes. Most
did not have an answer, though some offered that in this specific case the Department of
State could be a neutral process lead. However, some were concerned that the
Department of State lacked the technical capabilities as well as an understanding of the
region and basin for this decision making process.
In terms of whether the lead agency, the US Entity, was responsive to review
participants, interviewee perceptions ranged from the US Entity not being responsive
enough to be too, or overly, responsive in some cases (i.e., too conciliatory to certain
groups). Some participants in the US Treaty review made a distinction between their
230
experiences with each of the two agencies. Some found the Corps much easier to work
with and did not have a high opinion of BPA. Others preferred working with BPA and
found the Corps unresponsive. The differences in the quality of relationships between the
US Entity and various basin sovereigns and stakeholders might be something the US
should consider leveraging in future US Entity processes.
Accountability to constituents
Many interviewees felt that members of the SRT/STT and interest groups were
accountable to their constituent groups and represented them well. However, some
participants perceived the opposite. As mentioned above, the US Entity serving as the
process lead posed a challenge to it representing its constituent’s interests. There were
other concerns about whether the members of the SRT were able to translate information
and report it accurately to their partners, constituents, and/or leadership. A third concern
was associated with the coalition of Department of the Interior (DOI) agencies. Some
interviewees expressed concern that because DOI wanted its agencies and bureaus to
present a united front, the different agencies had fewer opportunities to voice a different
perspective, one more in line with their traditional constituencies (e.g., the Bureau of
Reclamation and irrigators). A fourth issue was the challenge state representatives faced
in representing the wide range of and sometimes competing interests and views in their
states.
Rule of law
Although most interviewees felt the US Entity followed the appropriate US laws
and met its legal obligations, two groups of participants did not feel that the US Entity
followed the rule of law. One group was the power utilities. They disagreed with the US
231
Entity’s decision to not recognize public utility districts (PUDs) as sovereigns and as a
result not provide them a seat in the Sovereign Participation Process. The other group
was the tribes, who shared that they did not believe the US Entity fully met its obligation
to consult and collaborate with the tribes as required by Executive Order 13175.
Other emergent subthemes of accountability
A number of themes associated with accountability (but outside my initial metrics
in the Water GPA) emerged during the interviews. One theme was the importance of the
US Department of State as a source of accountability. As previously mentioned, the US
Department of State advised the region that it was in the region’s best interest to present a
consensus document as opposed to separate letters sharing different positions. The tribes
also referenced the value of having the Department of State hold the US Entity
accountable in the Tribal consultation efforts.
Another emergent accountability theme was the lack of an idea or commitment
about what the subsequent steps of the process would look like. Interviewees expressed
frustration with the lack of information about how the Department of State and other
federal agencies would make a final decision through the Circular 175 process and how
they might engage the region if they initiate negotiations with Canada.
A third emergent theme was the role of the 2013 deadline for the US Regional
Recommendation. Several interviewees cited the deadline as the reason why the region
could not devote more time to conducting technical studies, work towards a deeper
understanding of the parties, and develop a stronger regional consensus and support for
the document. A few study participants attributed the 2013 deadline to the hydropower
interests. They shared that the hydropower interests wanted a US Regional
232
Recommendation by the end of 2013 so that the Department of State would have enough
time to complete its review of the national interest and issue notification of termination or
request negotiations for treaty modification by September 16, 2014--the earliest possible
date to issue a unilateral notice of termination. The study participants noted that the
hydropower interests pushed for earlier notification in order to potentially reduce the
Canadian Entitlement as soon as possible after 2024. Their observations are supported by
the hydropower community’s push to include the statement “other options to create a
modernized post-2024 Treaty should be evaluated” if the US and Canada “are unable to
achieve agreement on key aspects of a modernized Treaty by 2015” in the final US
Regional Recommendation (p. 7).
6.4.4 Information
Information and knowledge includes the data, information and knowledge used to
make the decision, including all stages of collection, modeling, experiments, and
analysis. The Water GPA looks at four metrics of information: 1) quality (i.e., were the
information and/or technical studies appropriate and adequate for the decision being
made), 2) audience appropriate and understandable, 3) timely, and 4) information
sharing. I present the survey and interviews results for each of those metrics in the
following subsections.
Survey Results
Survey respondents rated information in terms of quality (i.e., was the information
appropriate and adequate for the decision being made) and access (was the information
available and understandable). A majority of respondents (19 out of 27) agreed that the
review used the appropriate existing information though only half (13 of 27) believed that
233
the appropriate technical studies were completed during the process (Table 74). Around
two thirds of survey respondents (17 of 17) thought that the information shared was
appropriate for the audience.
As with accountability, some of the scores for information varied and there is not
clear agreement on some aspects of information in the review. This variance seems to be
explained by whether the participant was a sovereign or stakeholder participant in the US
CRT 2014/2024 Review (Table 75 and Table 76). For example, when asked whether the
Treaty review used the appropriate existing information a majority sovereigns (11 of 15)
agreed, while stakeholders were evenly split between agreeing (4 of 12), disagreeing (4
of 12) and being neutral (4 of 12) on the issue. Likewise, when asked if the information
shared was appropriate for the intended audience, a majority of sovereigns agreed (8 of
15), while stakeholders were much more evenly split with two disagreeing, six agreeing,
and four remaining neutral on the topic. The semi-structured interviews provide further
insight into the participants’ views of information produced and used in the US CRT
2014/2024 Review and why they shared differing perspectives in the surveys.
234
Table 74. US CRT 2014/2024 Review information scores
Distribution of Responses
Category
Mean
Disagree Neutral
Agree
The review utilized the appropriate existing
3.96
1
7
19
information (studies, knowledge, etc.)
The appropriate technical studies were
3.26
8
6
13
conducted
Information was made available in a timely
2.96
7
15
5
manner
Total
27
27
27
Information made available was easily
3.22
6
9
12
27
understood
Information shared was audience appropriate
(e.g., matched the level of technical
3.52
3
7
17
27
understanding)
Information produced in the review was
adequate (i.e., appropriate for the decision
2.96
8
11
8
27
being made)
This table presents the mean scores and response counts for ALL survey participants in the US
CRT 2014/2024 Review on the topic of information. Survey participants marked whether they
strongly disagreed (assigned value = 1), disagreed (assigned value = 2), were neutral (assigned
value = 3), agreed (assigned value = 4), or strongly agreed (assigned value = 5) with each
statement. A higher mean score indicates higher overall agreement with the statement. I
compiled the “strongly disagreed” and “disagreed” as well as the “strongly agreed” and “agreed”
counts instead of reporting them in separate columns.
Table 75. US CRT 2014/2024 Review sovereign information scores
Distribution of Responses
Category
Mean
Disagree Neutral
Agree
The review utilized the appropriate existing
4.07
1
3
11
information (studies, knowledge, etc.)
The appropriate technical studies were
3.33
4
2
9
conducted
Information was made available in a timely
manner
3.07
4
8
3
Total
15
15
15
Information made available was easily
3.20
4
4
7
15
understood
Information shared was audience appropriate
(e.g., matched the level of technical
3.67
1
3
11
15
understanding)
Information produced in the review was
adequate (i.e., appropriate for the decision
3.20
2
7
6
15
being made)
This table presents the mean scores and response counts for SOVEREIGN survey participants in
the US CRT 2014/2024 Review on the topic of information. Survey participants marked whether
they strongly disagreed (assigned value = 1), disagreed (assigned value = 2), were neutral
(assigned value = 3), agreed (assigned value = 4), or strongly agreed (assigned value = 5) with
each statement. A higher mean score indicates higher overall agreement with the statement. I
compiled the “strongly disagreed” and “disagreed” as well as the “strongly agreed” and “agreed”
counts instead of reporting them in separate columns.
235
Table 76. US CRT 2014/2024 Review stakeholder information scores
Distribution of Responses
Category
Mean
Disagree Neutral
Agree
The review utilized the appropriate existing
3.83
0
4
8
information (studies, knowledge, etc.)
The appropriate technical studies were
3.17
4
4
4
conducted
Information was made available in a timely
2.83
3
7
2
manner
Total
12
12
12
Information made available was easily
3.25
2
5
5
12
understood
Information shared was audience appropriate
(e.g., matched the level of technical
3.33
2
4
6
12
understanding)
Information produced in the review was
adequate (i.e., appropriate for the decision
2.67
6
4
2
12
being made)
This table presents the mean scores and response counts for STAKEHOLDER survey
participants in the US CRT 2014/2024 Review on the topic of information. Survey participants
marked whether they strongly disagreed (assigned value = 1), disagreed (assigned value = 2),
were neutral (assigned value = 3), agreed (assigned value = 4), or strongly agreed (assigned
value = 5) with each statement. A higher mean score indicates higher overall agreement with the
statement. I compiled the “strongly disagreed” and “disagreed” as well as the “strongly agreed”
and “agreed” counts instead of reporting them in separate columns.
Information quality
Mirroring the survey results, some interviewees felt that the information gathering
efforts and technical studies in the US CRT 2014/2024 Review were adequate for the
decision. Some were impressed with the scope of the technical work and how the Treaty
review advanced the modeling capabilities in the basin. Others felt more work could have
been done. As one might expect, different stakeholder interests wanted additional
technical studies on their area of interest. For example, navigation interests wanted
additional studies on impacts to navigation and the tribes and environmental groups
wanted additional ecosystem studies. However, I also discovered three primary areas
where interviewees of various backgrounds wanted additional analysis: flood risk
management, climate change, and ecosystem-based function. These participants felt that
a better knowledge of flood risk management alternatives and impacts, greater awareness
236
of future climate change impacts, and an understanding what ecosystem-based function
meant in terms of river operations would better inform parties in the region and the US
Regional Recommendation.
Another issue associated with information quality was choosing what models to
use in the technical studies. Different groups in the basin trust and accept the assumptions
of different models. The US Entity addressed this in one instance by conducting analyses
with two models, CSS and COMPASS, which look at salmon survival rates. One
example of conflict over modeling was in the use of RES-SIM versus the development of
the new Corps model HEC-WAT (Hydrologic Engineering Center Watershed Analysis
Tool). HEC-WAT is a much more sophisticated model, however, it required a lot of time
to develop to a point where it could be used in the Treaty review technical analysis. Some
participants felt that instead of developing the HEC-WAT they should have updated and
only used RES-SIM in order to start the technical studies sooner.
Audience appropriate and understandable
In their comments about whether they were able to understand the information
produced in the US CRT 2014/2024 Review, nearly all participants noted that the
information was very technical. At the same time they acknowledged that this complexity
was necessary and appropriate due to the nature of the Columbia River Treaty and its
impact on dam and reservoir operations. However, most shared that the US Entity and
others conducting the technical studies had a hard time translating the findings into
something that members of the SRT and STT could understand. One environmental
stakeholder shared:
237
Speaking for myself, I'm a pretty sophisticated member of the public. I
work on rivers all the time. This was a hard thing to get a handle on.
-Environmental stakeholder
Several SRT members also commented that as the Treaty review progressed
presentations of technical information to the SRT (the policy coordinator level of the
review) improved some and were slightly more understandable. A federal agency
representative on the SRT shared:
The technical information we presented was a constant issue, because the
people providing the information are very technical people…a lot of it
went right over our heads. A lot of policy people were just lost. We tried
to get them to do a better job, and after a couple of years they got better,
but it was still hard. - SRT member
Information sharing
To capture the degree of information sharing, survey respondents answered a
question where they selected the category that best described the degree of information
sharing between them and the US Entity. Adapted from the construct scale developed by
Glen Hearns (2010), the scale ranges from no exchange of information to an extensive,
regular exchange of information on a wide variety of topics (Table 77). Each category is
defined in terms of the timing, method, and content of information shared. Several
respondents found the scale confusing as they did not understand what some of the
indicators meant. For example, they asked “what is the difference between a regular or
irregular exchange of information?” To clarify I shared brief definitions of the terms
verbally (Table 78).
238
Table 77. US CRT 2014/2024 Review information sharing scores
Number of
Number of
Number of
SRT/STT
Non SRT/STT
Scale
Indicators (timing/method/content)
Participants
Participants
Participants
0
0
0
1
No exchange of information
Irregular release of information; informal
3
0
3
2
exchange (e.g., through release of
reports or journal articles)
Irregular but formal exchange of
1
1
0
information that is limited, disputed or
3
questioned
Irregular but formal exchange of limited
3
0
3
4
information, validity accepted
Regular formal exchange, only one
0
0
0
topic included, validity accepted or
5
disputed
Regular exchange, multiple topics
3
1
2
related to water included, validity
6
accepted
Regular exchange, joint gathering
0
0
0
and/or processing, only one topic
7
included
Regular exchange, joint gathering
3
2
1
8
and/or processing, multiple water
issues included
Regular exchange, joint gathering
and/or processing, multiple water
13
9
4
9
issues included, such as socioeconomic and environmental issues
exchanged or discussed
Extensive and regular exchange, joint
information gathering and/or
1
1
0
10
processing, socio-economicenvironmental, policy and planning
information
1
1
0
Blank No response
28
15
13
Total
Table 77 displays how different survey participants reported the degree of information sharing
between themselves and the process lead (the US Entity). Generally, but not always, sovereign
participants of the US CRT 2014/2024 Review reported higher degrees of information sharing
than stakeholder participants.
239
Table 78. Information sharing construct scale term definitions
Scale term
Definition
Information is shared periodically at seemingly random intervals,
Irregular exchange
without any assurance that information will continue to be shared in the
future
Information is shared at agreed upon points of the process (e.g., so
Regular exchange
many times a year, after each iteration of technical studies, etc.)
Informal exchange
Information is shared through back channels or information is released
to the public where the party then accesses it (i.e., indirect access)
Formal exchange
Information is directly shared as part of the official process
Validity disputed or
questioned
Information shared is not accepted as accurate or appropriate for
answering the question at hand
Information is accepted as valid (accurate or appropriate for answering
Validity accepted
the question at hand)
Table 78 shares definitions of different terms used in the information sharing scale. These
definitions were shared with survey participants when they asked but were not included in writing
on the survey itself.
Of the 15 sovereigns (federal agencies, states, and Tribes) that completed the
survey, nine rated the information sharing as a “9” (regular exchange, joint gathering
and/or processing, multiple water issues included, such as socio-economic and
environmental issues exchanged or discussed), two rated information sharing as an “8,”
another two rated information sharing as either a “3” or “6,” and one person did not
respond to that question. This clustering makes sense as most of sovereigns participated
in either the SRT or STT which met regularly and either conducted or discussed the
technical studies conducted as part of the US CRT 2014/2024 Review.
For the most part, stakeholders rated their information sharing with the US Entity
lower than the sovereigns, with six participants reporting scores ranging from 2 to 6.
However, the three stakeholders from the hydropower industry and another nongovernmental organization in the region all scored information sharing as a “9” much like
most of the sovereign participants. Several interviewees noted that BPA met with, and
collaborated with some hydropower utilities to complete some of the hydropower-related
240
technical studies. Other stakeholder interests did not have this same access to
information.
I asked interviewees if they felt the degree of information sharing was
appropriate. A majority wanted some form of increase in information sharing, though at
the same time, many talked about “information overload” and how at times there was too
much information. A few stakeholders shared that they could not see some of the
information presented to the SRT and were frustrated with that. Some sovereigns
appreciated the amount of information sharing between them and the US Entity. They
also liked how some of the technical work was done jointly, or at least the studies were
scoped jointly before the US Entity or its consultants conducted the work. Other
sovereigns wanted more collaboration on the technical work.
A unique situation in the US CRT 2014/2024 Review was the sudden shift in
information sharing in the spring/summer of 2013. Up until that point the SRT had full
access to the various technical studies of the review. Different stakeholders had varying
degrees of access. However, upon the request by the Department of State, all technical
results were only accessible by the US Entity agencies (including studies different
agencies outside the US Entity contributed to). This upset a number of participants. The
US Entity tried to mitigate the negative impact of this shift, by requesting person to share
the summaries of the “Iteration 3” results with the SRT and at different interest group
meetings. Some participants ultimately understood this decision to limit information
sharing in order to protect the US negotiating position. Others did not see the value in not
releasing the results. They posited that: 1) there are methods to share information while
still protecting information from Freedom of Information Act requests and public release
241
and/or 2) how much does Canada really not already know after jointly operating the
Columbia River system with the US for the past 50 years.
Available in timely manner
Outside of the issue of not sharing the technical studies after the summer of 2013,
interviewees did not have strong feelings about whether information was made available
in a timely manner. The general sentiment was that they would have liked the
information sooner than it was provided. However, most also understood that technical
analysis takes time and the US Entity and STT did what they could to conduct the various
technical studies as quickly as they could.
6.4.5 Inclusivity
In Chapter 2, I define inclusivity as how interested and effected parties are
involved in various stages of the decision making process, both in terms of degree and
quality. In the following subsections, I discuss the survey results and then my analysis of
the semi-structured interviews addressing the following aspects of inclusivity: 1)
representation, 2) ability to influence, 3) resources to participate, and 4) timing of
involvement.
Survey Results
In the survey questions about inclusivity, I asked respondents to share their views
of the inclusion of all parties as well as how they or their organization were included in
the review process (Table 79). Around half of respondents felt they could influence the
policy issues and technical studies in the review (15 out of 28), had enough resources to
participate (14 out of 28), and were given fair notice (14 out of 28) and early opportunity
(14 out of 27) to be involved in the review. Slightly more than two-thirds of respondents
242
(20 out of 28) felt that interested and affected parties had a venue for participating in the
Treaty review. However, when asked if parties were adequately represented, the number
of participants who agreed was cut in half. Eleven (out of 28) participants agreed they
were adequately represented in the review and nine disagreed (six were neutral). To
investigate this split, I separated the sovereign and stakeholder responses.
Table 79. US CRT 2014/2024 Review inclusivity scores
Category
Interested and affected parties had a venue
for participating the Treaty review
Interested and affected parties were
adequately represented in the Treaty review
You (or your organization) were adequately
represented in the Treaty review
Mean
Distribution of Responses
Disagree Neutral
Agree
Total
3.64
5
3
20
28
3.04
8
11
9
28
3.21
9
6
11
26
You (or your organization) had the ability to
3.36
7
6
15
28
influence the Treaty review on policy issues
You (or your organization) had the ability to
influence the Treaty review’s technical
3.25
9
4
15
28
studies
You (or your organization) had the resources
needed to participate (e.g., money,
3.14
10
4
14
28
personnel)
You (or your organization) were given the
3.18
9
5
14
28
opportunity for early involvement
Your (or your organization) were given fair
notice and time to be involved in the Treaty
3.41
7
6
14
27
review
This table presents the mean scores and response counts for ALL survey participants in the US
CRT 2014/2024 Review on the topic of inclusivity. Survey participants marked whether they
strongly disagreed (assigned value = 1), disagreed (assigned value = 2), were neutral (assigned
value = 3), agreed (assigned value = 4), or strongly agreed (assigned value = 5) with each
statement. I averaged the responses to calculate a mean score. A higher mean score indicates
higher overall agreement with the statement. I compiled the “strongly disagreed” and “disagreed”
as well as the “strongly agreed” and “agreed” counts instead of reporting them separately.
Once again there was a clear dichotomy between sovereign and stakeholder
responses (Table 80 and Table 81). An example of the difference in scores is seen in how
the mean sovereign score for the statement “You (or your organization) were adequately
represented in the Treaty review” (3.77, Table 80) is a full point higher than the
stakeholder mean score (2.58, Table 81). Only two stakeholders (out of 12) agreed that
243
they were adequately represented in the review process (3 were neutral and one did not
respond) (Table 81). Views of whether each stakeholder had the ability to influence
policy issues and technical issues discussed during the review varied, as did views on
whether the stakeholder participants thought they were given fair notice and the
opportunity for early involvement in the process (Table 81). The only areas where a
majority of sovereigns did not score the review favorably was in terms of having the
resources needed to participate in the US CRT 2014/2024 Review and whether they
thought interested and affected parties on the whole were adequately represented in the
review (Table 80). I next examine the interview comments about inclusivity to further
examine what about the process worked well and what could have been improved.
Table 80. US CRT 2014/2024 Review sovereign inclusivity scores
Distribution of Responses
Category
Mean
Disagree Neutral
Agree
Interested and affected parties had a venue
3.53
3
1
11
for participating the Treaty review
Interested and affected parties were
3.20
4
5
6
adequately represented in the Treaty review
You (or your organization) were adequately
3.77
3
3
9
represented in the Treaty review
You (or your organization) had the ability to
3.60
3
4
9
influence the Treaty review on policy issues
You (or your organization) had the ability to
influence the Treaty review’s technical studies
3.73
2
4
10
Total
15
15
15
16
16
You (or your organization) had the resources
3.13
6
2
7
15
needed to participate (e.g., money, personnel)
You (or your organization) were given the
3.53
4
2
10
16
opportunity for early involvement
Your (or your organization) were given fair
notice and time to be involved in the Treaty
3.79
3
2
10
15
review
This table presents the mean scores and response counts for SOVEREIGN participants in the US
CRT 2014/2024 Review on the topic of inclusivity. Survey participants marked whether they
strongly disagreed (assigned value = 1), disagreed (assigned value = 2), were neutral (assigned
value = 3), agreed (assigned value = 4), or strongly agreed (assigned value = 5) with each
statement. I averaged the responses to calculate a mean score. A higher mean score indicates
higher overall agreement with the statement. I compiled the “strongly disagreed” and “disagreed”
as well as the “strongly agreed” and “agreed” counts instead of reporting them separately.
244
Table 81. US CRT 2014/2024 Review stakeholder inclusivity scores
Distribution of Responses
Category
Mean
Disagree Neutral
Agree
Interested and affected parties had a venue
3.77
2
2
9
for participating the Treaty review
Interested and affected parties were
2.85
4
6
3
adequately represented in the Treaty review
You (or your organization) were adequately
2.58
7
3
2
represented in the Treaty review
You (or your organization) had the ability to
3.08
5
2
6
influence the Treaty review on policy issues
You (or your organization) had the ability to
influence the Treaty review’s technical studies
2.69
8
0
Total
5
13
13
12
13
13
You (or your organization) had the resources
3.15
4
2
7
13
needed to participate (e.g., money, personnel)
You (or your organization) were given the
2.77
6
3
4
13
opportunity for early involvement
Your (or your organization) were given fair
notice and time to be involved in the Treaty
3.00
5
4
4
13
review
This table presents the mean scores and response counts for STAKEHOLDER survey
participants in the US CRT 2014/2024 Review on the topic of inclusivity. Survey participants
marked whether they strongly disagreed (assigned value = 1), disagreed (assigned value = 2),
were neutral (assigned value = 3), agreed (assigned value = 4), or strongly agreed (assigned
value = 5) with each statement. I averaged the responses to calculate a mean score. A higher
mean score indicates higher overall agreement with the statement. I compiled the “strongly
disagreed” and “disagreed” as well as the “strongly agreed” and “agreed” counts instead of
reporting them in separate columns.
Representation in the US CRT 2014/2024 Review
The most criticized aspect of the US CRT 2014/2024 Review was how the US
Entity structured the representation of different groups in the process. The comments
follow three tracks: 1) the sovereign-stakeholder dichotomy, 2) representation on the SRT
by the numbers, and 3) exclusion of the Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde from
the SRT.
In regards to the first point, you may remember that stakeholder and sovereign
engagement occurred on two parallel tracks. Sovereign engagement through the
Sovereign Participation Process (government-to-government meetings, the SRT, and the
STT) was much more extensive and consistent compared to stakeholder engagement
245
(public meetings and one-on-one meetings with stakeholder groups). All stakeholders
objected to the fact that stakeholders were excluded from the SRT and not allowed to
attend/observe the closed door SRT meetings. Some sovereigns shared this criticism and
also wished various stakeholder groups had greater access to the US CRT 2014/2024
Review Team process. The tribes liked the separation of the two groups as it recognized
their sovereign status. They felt that co-managers of the natural resources in the basin,
such as themselves, are not stakeholders and therefore should be afforded different access
and influence in the process. A few other sovereigns also agreed with how the
representation was set up in the US CRT 2014/2024.
Even though stakeholders and some sovereigns felt there should be greater
representation both acknowledged the challenge of including so many people in the
room. SRT members talked about how the size of the SRT was already on the verge of
being too large and unmanageable. One state SRT member shared:
I agree with what they did which was to set up the SRT just as
representatives to sovereigns. Not stakeholders. If we had it to do over
again I would do the same thing. Even at that level it was extremely
difficult for the US to get to a recommendation. If we had had the other
stakeholders in there there's no way that I can possibly see that we would
have gotten to a recommendation. It would have never happened. The
whole thing would have just imploded, I think. It almost did just with
sovereigns. - State SRT Member
Therefore, these interviewees recommended developing a process that included
sovereigns and stakeholders together in a way that kept the number of people at the table
manageable. However, they did not have any specific ideas of how to accomplish that
goal.
246
Another critique of how representation was structured in the review was in the
make-up of the SRT. It consisted of the two US Entity agencies, nine other federal
agencies, five tribal representatives for fifteen tribes, and four representatives for the
states of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Montana. Some felt different groups (e.g.,
federal agencies and the tribes) were over-represented in terms of numbers of people on
the SRT. Others wondered if a single representative from a state could adequately
represent all of that state’s interests.
The third criticism of representation in the process focuses on the Confederated
Tribes of the Grand Ronde (CTGR). The CTRG was not given a seat on the SRT or STT
and consulted with the US Entity separately. Starting in 2012 (a year and a half after the
start of the Treaty review process) the CTRG had its own series of government-togovernment meetings with the US Entity as well as staff level meetings to share technical
information. I heard two explanations of why the CTGR was excluded from the SRT. The
first narrative is that the fifteen tribes of the Tribal Caucus were part of the SRT because
they have management, authorities and responsibilities affected by the implementation of
the Columbia River Treaty. Since the CTGR does not it should not (and therefore did not)
get the same seat at the table. The second explanation is that the CTRG was excluded
because of tribal politics and antagonistic relationships between the CTGR and other
tribes. In this narrative the Tribal Caucus said it would walk away from the US CRT
2014/2024 Review if the CTGR was included on the SRT/STT.
In addition to these critiques, interviewees did note some positive aspects of
representation. A majority of sovereigns liked the set-up of having the STT as a technical
working group to do the work tasked to it by the SRT. Several SRT members noted that
247
they liked being able to consult with their STT member to gain a better understanding of
the technical information in the US CRT 2014/2024 Review. Several people also shared
that they thought the two public comment opportunities on the draft versions of the
Regional Recommendation were a positive effort.
A final theme related to representation and the US Treaty review was how not
having a seat at the SRT/STT did not automatically mean a group lacked influence and
was not represented in the final US Regional Recommendation. I talk about influence in
the next subsection.
Ability to influence policy and technical issues
All interviewees reported that they had some ability to influence the US Regional
Recommendation and technical studies. That influence came at different times and
through different means depending on whether they were a sovereign or stakeholder
(Table 82). Sovereigns were able to influence the process through their direct access via
the Sovereign Review Team and Sovereign Technical Team. Stakeholders influence was
related to their political power in the basin and access to the US Entity.
Table 82. Sources of ability to influence policy issues and technical studies
Type of Involvement Source of ability to influence
Sovereigns
 Seat on SRT and STT
 Coalitions with SRT
Stakeholders
 Political power (e.g., influence via PNW Congressional Delegation)
 Access to US Entity
Table 82 reports the different sources of influence on policy issues and technical studies noted by
different interview participants about themselves and others involved in the US CRT 2014/2024
Review.
The SPP was designed so that the SRT would provide direction to the STT on
what technical studies to conduct. Through this approach, all members of the SRT had
some influence over the technical studies. For example, tribes and allies were able to
248
successfully advocate for the inclusion of additional scenarios that included a more
natural hydrograph. The US CRT 2014/2024 also used two different models, COMPASS
and CSS, to examine impacts of different flows on salmon because different groups
prefer different models. However, as the leader of the review and funding source for the
technical work, the US Entity had greater influence in determining what would be
studied. SRT members were appreciative of their ability to help shape the technical
studies. However, they were also frustrated that the US Entity did not conduct all the
studies requested (e.g., the flood risk management studies previously discussed in
“information quality”).
Resources to participate
Having the resources to participate in a process is a tricky component of the
Water GPA. Resources are critical to ensuring that the appropriate parties can participate
in a decision making process. However, it is often something the process lead has little
control over. Funding and staff are often dictated by an external group, in this case, by
Congress and congressional funding. In addition, interested and affected parties may have
limited resources which influences their ability to participate in a decision making
process.
Several stakeholders and some sovereigns noted that they did not have the
funding, time, or staff to engage the US CRT 2014/2024 Review as much as they would
have liked. Some attributed this to the difficulty in conveying the importance of investing
the time and money to the US CRT 2014/2024 Review to their funding sources.
A few interviewees, namely the lead agencies and utilities, shared that they did
have the resources to participate in the process. They expressed that the access to
249
resources allowed them to fully engage in the process, exert influence on the US
Regional Recommendation, and dramatically improve the technical capabilities in the
basin through new models and studies.
Fair notice and time for early involvement
A dichotomy emerged in the timing of different review participant’s involvement
in the US Treaty review. The US Entity engaged all sovereigns early in the process.
Some of those sovereigns remained engaged from the first meeting through the delivery
of the Regional Recommendation. However, with stakeholders some participated early
while others became aware of the Treaty review much later. Understanding that federal
agencies do not have time to stay up to date on who are all the basin stakeholders, one
stakeholder offered a suggestion of how to identify stakeholders in a basin as large as the
Columbia in order to reach out early and alert those groups about the process. For future
processes, including future work on the CRT, s/he recommended federal agencies reach
out to the PNW Congressional Delegation as representative’s staffs likely know what
relevant groups are active in their districts.
6.4.6 Context
I define context as the various conditions of the basin and socio-ecological system
under which the decision is being made. I did not include measures of context in the
survey. I chose to do this because I did not find a framework that offered a standardized
set of metrics for evaluating context (as opposed to documenting context). I explain my
decision in greater detail in Chapter 2. To catalogue what aspects of context influenced
the US CRT 2014/2024 Review process and the US Regional Recommendation, I asked
interviewees to share examples of the ecological/biophysical, legal/political,
250
social/cultural context or other pre-existing conditions or issues that influenced the
review. This allowed me to identify place specific factors that influenced the US CRT
2014/2024 Review. I coded the interview transcripts (both the responses to that interview
question as well as the whole transcript as interviewees often brought up context at a
variety of points during the interview) with the secondary code ecological/biophysical,
legal/political, social/cultural, and other using the Water GPA framework. Since there
were a larger number of quotes within the “legal/political” and “social/cultural” codes, I
then inductively coded a tertiary level within each of them to better identify themes.
Participants cited legal and political factors the most frequently when asked what
aspects of the context influenced the review process and the Regional Recommendation
(Table 83). They shared how some laws set up the structure of the US CRT 2014/2024,
specifically the US Entity as the lead agency and the parallel sovereign and stakeholder
engagement processes. Participants also noted that the structures of previous processes,
such as the Fish Accords process, as well as the (typically antagonistic) relationships
between the various parties also set the stage and tone of the US CRT 2014/2024 Review.
251
Table 83. Important aspects of the basin context for the US CRT 2014/204 Review
Code
Example(s)
Ecological/biophysical context
Flooding potential in basin, location of federal agencies and
review meetings, size of basin
Legal/political context
Federal laws
Endangered Species Act, Northwest Power Act, Federal
Advisory Committee Act, Executive Order 13175
(Coordination and Consultation with Indian Tribal
Governments), Executive Order 11177 (sets US Entity),
Water Resources Reform and Development Act
US-Tribal Relations
Exclusion of Tribes from original Treaty negotiations
Power dynamics
Political power of power utilities; increased power of Tribes
Previous processes
Fish Accords, Federal Columbia River Power System
Biological Opinion, prior Tribal consultation efforts
Prior relationships
Professional relationships from working in basin on
processes listed above, relationships between tribes
Social/cultural context
Beliefs and values
Increase in environmental values since 1960s
Institutional culture
Corps and BPA agency cultures
Economics
Economic importance of cheaper hydropower and flood
protection
Problem/Task Type
Difference in views of what is a “Treaty issue,” difference in
views about what about the Treaty is outdated
Table 83 summarizes the different aspect of the basin context interviewees shared as important
to the development and implementation of the US CRT 2014/2024 Review.
Different goals
In terms of the social and cultural context, interviewees credited a shift in values,
namely an increase in environmental values in the region since the ratification of the
Treaty in 1964, as the reason for so many conversations about adding ecosystem-based
function as a third primary function of the Treaty. An increase in the recognition and
political power of the Tribes also promoted the inclusion of environmental values in the
review and Regional Recommendation. Some participants also felt that the institutional
cultures of the two US Entity agencies influenced the process. They shared that both
agencies are accustomed to operating in their respective spheres (hydropower and flood
252
risk management) and brought those biases to the process. A third theme in this area was
the economic importance of hydropower and flood risk management to the region. US
Treaty review participants talked about how the Treaty promoted development of the
region in terms of building in the floodplain and attracting businesses and people looking
for cheap power sources.
Participants noted fewer aspects of the biological/ecological system playing a role
in the US Treaty review. However, a few participants talked about how the Vanport flood
of 1948 and the continued potential for flooding in the basin was always in the back of
several participants’ minds. The basin’s large geographic area proved to be a challenge
for the review in a couple of different ways. It was hard to engage the public and various
parties when they were distributed over thousands of square miles. The size of the basin
also made it difficult for various SRT and STT members to attend and participate in
meetings due to the cost and time associated with travel. The US CRT 2014/2024 Review
tried to overcome this problem by rotating the SRT and public meeting locations around
the basin. However, with a large concentration of federal agencies in Portland, a larger
percentage of the meetings were held there.
6.4.7 Other Aspects of the Process
In addition to evaluating the US CRT 2014/2024 Review process through the
Water GPA, I looked for emergent themes in the interviews. I noticed three themes in my
inductive coding. First, several interviewees commented on the role of personality in the
review. Several participants mentioned two people who were difficult to work with
and/or had what the interviewee felt was undue influence on the process. These
participants shared that, at times, these personalities made it harder for the region to come
253
to consensus. For example, some interviewees pointed out comments made by these
personalities that they felt were disingenuine, misleading, or full of hubris. Other
interviewees noted that decisions made by these individuals prevented parties from
coming together to work out their issues and better understand one another.
A second emergent theme focused on the facilitation of the SRT process. Most of
the SRT members I interviewed, felt the SRT meetings could have been better facilitated.
The concerns with the facilitation focused on two issues, 1) the facilitator’s technical and
social understanding of the basin and 2) neutrality. A facilitator was brought in from
outside of the basin because the US Entity believed it would allow the facilitator to be
more of a neutral actor since s/he would not have any pre-conceived notions from some
of the previous contentious processes in the basin. However, several SRT members noted
that facilitator seemed to favor and defer to the US Entity because the US Entity paid for
facilitator. This hurt the facilitator’s credibility as a neutral player in the process.
Interviewees also noted that the facilitator did not have the technical background to
facilitate a process that included a large amount of very complex technical information.
SRT members noted that this issue was addressed when the US Entity brought in another
facilitator with a technical background and deeper understanding of the basin’s history
and dynamics to co-facilitate the process.
A final emergent code centered on the relationship with and role of BC in the US
process. Some participants were disappointed with the lack of transboundary
collaboration with the Canadians and shared a desire to engage the BC portion of the
basin. US CRT 2014/2024 Review participants commented that while they understood
the reasons for the two countries working separately after the Phase 1 technical studies,
254
they wanted to know more about Canada’s positions and values. Other participants
discussed the relative negotiation strength of the US compared to Canada and the
potential for future negotiations.
6.4.8 Decision (US Regional Recommendation)
With an understanding of what about the process worked well and what could
have been improved, I next talk about participant’s views of the Regional
Recommendation.
Survey Results
Survey responses on the questions related to the US Regional Recommendation
were largely positive (Table 84). A large majority of survey participants (22 out of 26)
agreed that the US Regional Recommendation adequately addressed the central task of
determining whether the CRT should be continued, modified, or terminated. Threequarters of respondents also felt the US Recommendation was legitimate and reflected
the views of the US Pacific Northwest. However, only half felt that the US Regional
Recommendation reflected their views, while three (of 25) disagreed and 9 (of 25)
respondents were neutral. Participants’ confidence that the terms of the Recommendation
will be adopted by the US varied with 11 of 27 agreeing, 5 of 27 disagreeing, or 11 of
27remaining neutral that the Recommendation will be effective.
255
Table 84. US CRT 2014/2024 Review decision scores
Category
The recommendation adequately addressed
the review’s central task (i.e., determine if the
Treaty should be continued, modified, or
terminated)
The recommendation is legitimate
Mean
Distribution of Responses
Disagree Neutral
Agree
Total
4.02
0
4
22
26
3.96
0
6
20
26
The recommendation will be effective (i.e.,
the terms of recommendation will be
accepted by the US)
3.30
5
11
11
27
The recommendation reflects the views of
the region (US Pacific Northwest)
3.74
3
3
19
25
The recommendation reflects your (or your
3.33
5
9
13
27
organization’s) views
Table 84 presents the mean scores and response counts for ALL survey participants in the US
CRT 2014/2024 Review on the US Regional Recommendation. Survey participants marked
whether they strongly disagreed (assigned value = 1), disagreed (assigned value = 2), were
neutral (assigned value = 3), agreed (assigned value = 4), or strongly agreed (assigned value =
5) with each statement. I averaged the responses to calculate a mean score. A higher mean
score indicates higher overall agreement with the statement. I compiled the “strongly disagreed”
and “disagreed” as well as the “strongly agreed” and “agreed” counts instead of reporting them in
separate columns.
When I split the sovereign scores from the stakeholder scores, I found that most
(but not all) of the negative and neutral views were from stakeholders (Table 85 and
Table 86). The clearest difference in the two groups of responses is on the topic of
whether the US Regional Recommendation reflects the participant’s views. Nine of 15
sovereigns agreed (two disagreed and four were neutral) while once again stakeholder
responses were evenly split with 4 (of 13) agreeing, 4 disagreeing and five reporting
neutral feelings.
256
Table 85. US CRT 2014/2024 Review sovereign decision scores
Distribution of Responses
Category
Mean
Disagree Neutral
Agree
The recommendation adequately addressed
the review’s central task (i.e., determine if the
4.14
0
1
13
Treaty should be continued, modified, or
terminated)
The recommendation is legitimate
4.23
0
1
12
Total
14
13
The recommendation will be effective (i.e.,
the terms of recommendation will be
accepted by the US)
3.43
2
5
7
14
The recommendation reflects the views of
the region (US Pacific Northwest)
4.00
2
0
12
14
The recommendation reflects your (or your
3.64
2
4
9
15
organization’s) views
Table 85 presents the mean scores and response counts for SOVEREIGN survey participants in
the US CRT 2014/2024 Review on the US Regional Recommendation. Survey participants
marked whether they strongly disagreed (assigned value = 1), disagreed (assigned value = 2),
were neutral (assigned value = 3), agreed (assigned value = 4), or strongly agreed (assigned
value = 5) with each statement. I averaged the responses to calculate a mean score. A higher
mean score indicates higher overall agreement with the statement. I compiled the “strongly
disagreed” and “disagreed” as well as the “strongly agreed” and “agreed” counts instead of
reporting them in separate columns.
Table 86. US CRT 2014/2024 Review stakeholder decision scores
Distribution of Responses
Category
Mean
Disagree Neutral
Agree
The recommendation adequately addressed
the review’s central task (i.e., determine if the
3.88
0
3
9
Treaty should be continued, modified, or
terminated)
The recommendation is legitimate
3.69
0
5
8
Total
12
13
The recommendation will be effective (i.e.,
the terms of recommendation will be
accepted by the US)
3.15
3
6
4
13
The recommendation reflects the views of
the region (US Pacific Northwest)
3.46
1
3
7
11
The recommendation reflects your (or your
3.00
4
5
4
13
organization’s) views
Table 86 presents the mean scores and response counts for STAKEHOLDER survey participants
in the US CRT 2014/2024 Review on the US Regional Recommendation. Survey participants
marked whether they strongly disagreed (assigned value = 1), disagreed (assigned value = 2),
were neutral (assigned value = 3), agreed (assigned value = 4), or strongly agreed (assigned
value = 5) with each statement. I averaged the responses to calculate a mean score. A higher
mean score indicates higher overall agreement with the statement. I compiled the “strongly
disagreed” and “disagreed” as well as the “strongly agreed” and “agreed” counts instead of
reporting them in separate columns.
257
Interview results
What participants shared in their interviews reflected the same patterns as the
survey. In their conversations about the US Regional Recommendation sovereigns
typically had more positive views of the Regional Recommendation. Stakeholders more
frequently expressed frustration that their views were given better attention in the
document. A majority of sovereigns and stakeholders felt the US Regional
Recommendation did what it needed to do to send the region’s views to the US
Department of State, though in some ways support for the document is tentative. One
hydropower interest said, “We didn’t come out and say that we supported the
recommendations. We just said that we were not going to oppose the recommendations
because of the changes they made [to the document].”
In addition to general comments about the Regional Recommendation reflecting
the views of the Pacific Northwest, I found three other themes of why participants were
willing to support the Regional Recommendation in the interview transcripts. First, US
CRT 2014/2024 Review participants noted that the document reflects the views of the
region because it is a document with consensus support. Second, participants felt that
they could see some of their views reflected in the document. For example, some
participants were appreciative that recommendations for the improvement of ecosystembased function were included. Finally, a number of participants discussed how the
document balances the diverse sets of interests and views in the region and various parts
of the text illustrate compromises by competing interests. One sovereign noted:
258
Everyone including the US Entity, had to compromise a little at the end,
and you always wish you didn't have to give this and that away, but, given
that, that was what everybody had to do, I think it came out pretty well.
- STT member
In my coding of the US CRT 2014/2024 interviews, I identified negative
statements about the US Regional Recommendation. When reviewing these statements, I
saw that a number of different interviewees shared the same reasons for not liking parts
of the US Regional Recommendation or not feeling it reflected the Pacific Northwest. I
categorized these statements into six themes of why participants did not think the
Regional Recommendation reflected their views or the views of the Pacific Northwest
and why they have mixed feelings about the document (Table 87). The six themes fall
into one of three categories: 1) opposition to content, 2) concerns about the level of
detail, and 3) apprehension about whether the document presented achievable negotiating
goals.
Table 87. Themes of why the US Regional Recommendation does not reflect US CRT
2014/2024 participant or region views
Theme
Description
OPPOSITION TO CONTENT
Non-Treaty topics included
Did not agree with the inclusion of topics outside of the original
Treaty purposes (hydropower generation and flood control).
Overly favors one interest
Some groups’ views were overly represented in the document
(e.g., hydropower)
Principle 9
Specific objections to Principle 9 of the Recommendation.
CONCERNS ABOUT DETAILS
Needs more specifics or
missing something critical
Hoped for greater detail in the document, particularly on their
issue of interest.
Too ambiguous or
contradictory
The language of the Regional Recommendation is too
ambiguous to know what it really means or the document
contradicts itself.
APPREHENSION ABOUT CONTENT
Skepticism about strength of
bargaining positions
All of the “asks” in the Recommendation were not realistic or
things that BC would consider accepting in a modernized
Treaty.
259
I found three themes as to why the US Regional Recommendation may not be
effective (i.e., accepted by the Department of State as the US negotiating position). First,
a few participants noted that there are larger factors at play in the relationship between
the US and Canada such as our large trade relationship, allied military actions, and other
hot topics such as the Keystone Pipeline. The second theme centers on the fragile nature
of the consensus in the region. Different groups felt that others were not supportive of the
document or were lobbying for actions that go against the principles of the Regional
Recommendation. A third theme was that it is impossible to implement all of what is
included in the US Regional Recommendation. One member of the SRT noted:
It is a consensus document in the way that we agreed to all of it. It would
be impossible for everything in there to be executed together and for the
outcome to be in favor for each of those elements. - SRT member
6.4.9 Byproducts
In the survey, I asked participants to note whether various byproducts emerged,
increased, decreased, or experienced no change as a result of the US CRT 2014/2024
Review process (Table 88)11. Two-thirds of survey participants identified several
byproducts as new or increased, including communication, coalitions, understanding of
other’s views and positions, mutual/shared understanding, the quality of relationships,
shared information and knowledge, their own and their organization’s and the public’s
education/awareness, an understanding of both the social and ecological systems, human
capital, and social capital (Table 88). More than half of the participants also reported that,
trust in others, technical models, co-produced science, as well as the ability to resolve
future disputes either emerged as a result of or increased due to the process. There were
11
In the survey I listed the byproducts alphabetically, but grouped them by general theme in Table 88 to
help organize the results.
260
two byproducts where approximately a third of the participants noted a decrease. Ten
participants (out of 27) noted that the level of conflict and hostility in the basin decreased.
Ten participants also marked that there was a decrease in the level of trust in the US
Entity as a result of the US CRT 2014/2024 Review process. Other byproducts listed by
respondents included assurance that action will be taken on the Treaty, a better
examination of the economic costs associated with potential Treaty changes, and a
recognition of opportunity costs associated with current and future operations under the
Treaty.
For three byproducts there was a notable difference in the responses from
sovereigns and stakeholders (Table 89). Twelve of fifteen sovereigns noted an increase or
emergence of the ability to resolve future disputes compared to three of nine
stakeholders. Nine sovereigns noted a decrease in the level of conflict and hostility,
whereas only four stakeholders reported a decrease. Fourteen of the fifteen sovereign
participants stated that the review process increased their understanding of
ecological/biophysical system compared to eight of the thirteen stakeholders.
In the survey, I also asked participants to list up to three byproducts from the
process that were most important to them and three byproducts they wished had resulted
from the process. The responses demonstrated what participant’s felt was most important
and what they most wanted varied (Table 90). Relational and knowledge-based
byproducts were most frequently cited as the most important byproducts to both
stakeholders and sovereigns. The two most mentioned byproducts that participants
wished resulted from the process were more transboundary conversations and actions
with British Columbia as well as collaboration with other groups.
261
Table 88. US CRT 2014/2024 Review byproduct counts
Decreased
No change
or don’t
know
Emerged
and/or
Increased
No
response
Communication
0
2
25
1
Coalitions
Mutual/shared understanding
0
1
4
3
23
23
1
1
0
4
23
1
0
5
22
1
Trust in others involved
1
9
17
1
Trust in the lead agency
8
10
8
2
Level of conflict and hostility
13
10
4
1
Shared knowledge and information
1
0
26
1
0
3
23
2
0
3
23
2
Public education/awareness
0
4
22
2
Understanding of ecological/
biophysical system
0
5
22
1
Understanding of the social system
Technical models
Co-produced science
Social capital
0
3
2
0
8
8
10
4
20
17
15
23
0
0
1
1
Human capital
1
6
19
2
Ability to resolve future disputes
1
11
15
1
Community capacity for decision
making
1
13
13
1
Innovation
0
16
11
1
Institutional capacity
1
15
11
1
Changes in water management
0
14
13
1
TANGIBLES
CAPACITY-BUILDING
KNOWLEDGE-BASED
RELATIONAL
Byproduct
Understanding of other’s views,
positions, etc.
Quality of relationships
Your organization’s education/
awareness
Your own education/awareness
Programs or initiatives (outside of
0
14
13
1
the decision)
Economic costs
0
17
10
1
Economic opportunities
0
20
7
1
Table 88 presents the number of survey respondents who noted a decrease,
emergence/increase, or no change in different byproducts that can be influenced by a process.
Please note: totals may equal more than 28 (the number of survey participants) as some
respondents noted that a byproduct both emerged and increased (or increased and decreased)
262
Table 89. Notable differences in stakeholder and sovereign byproduct responses*
No change
Emerged
No
Byproduct
Decreased
or don’t
and/or
response
know
Increased
Ability to resolve future disputes
Sovereign
0
2
12
1
Stakeholders
1
9
3
0
Sovereign
9
3
1
1
Stakeholders
4
7
2
0
0
0
14
1
0
5
8
0
Level of conflict and hostility
Understanding of ecologicalbiophysical system
Sovereign
Stakeholders
Table 89 displays the difference in the number of sovereigns and stakeholders who reported
changes in three byproducts (ability to resolve future disputes, level of conflict and hostility, and
understanding of the ecological-biophysical system). I examined all byproducts for potential
differences in reporting; however since different numbers of sovereigns (15 people) and
stakeholders (13 people) took the survey, in this table I only note differences that are greater than
4 responses.
The semi-structured interviews provided an opportunity to share examples of the
various byproducts of the process (Table 91) and talk in greater detail about why different
byproducts were important. While conversations about the process tended to be more
critical, interviewees were much more positive in their discussions about byproducts.
However, along with his praise for the US CRT 2014/2024, participants also shared
suggestions for how to better promote the byproducts. Recommendations included
structuring the process differently so that the US Entity agencies only acted as
representatives of their constituencies (instead of also having the dual role of process
convener), conducting additional studies to improve knowledge, understanding and
capacity, and increasing the involvement of stakeholders earlier in the process.
263
7
1
Communication
5
1
Understanding of other’s views, positions, etc.
3
1
Trust in the lead agency
2
1
Level of conflict and hostility
1
0
Trust in others involved
1
3
Mutual/shared understanding
0
0
Quality of relationships
0
1
Public education/awareness
4
2
Shared knowledge and information
Understanding of the social system
4
2
0
3
Your own education/awareness
2
0
Understanding of ecological/biophysical system
1
0
Your organization’s education/awareness
1
0
Co-produced science
0
3
Technical models
0
0
Community capacity for environmental/policy
decision making
3
2
Human capital
3
0
Ability to resolve future disputes
2
1
Institutional capacity
2
2
Innovation
1
0
Social capital
1
0
Changes in water management
3
3
Economic opportunities
3
0
Economic costs
1
1
Programs or initiatives (outside of the decision)
0
1
Other (total)
1
10
OTHERS
KNOWLEDGE-BASED
RELATIONAL
Coalitions
CAPACITY-BUILDING
Byproducts they
wished resulted
from review
TANGIBLES
Table 90. Most important byproducts of the US CRT 2014/2024 Review
Most important
Byproduct
byproduct from
review
Other - Transboundary communication or action
1
4
Other - Collaboration with others
0
4
No response
1
3
Table 90 displays what survey respondents reported as the most important byproducts from the U
CRT 2014/2024 Review and which byproducts they wished had resulted from the review process.
264
Table 91. Example byproducts of the US CRT 2014/2024 Review
Byproduct
Example(s)
Communication
Continuing dialogue among tribes
Coalitions
Tribal Caucus, CRT Power Group
Mutual/shared understanding
Tribal Common Views document
Understanding of other’s views,
positions, etc.
“I gained a deeper understanding of the views and positions
of each of the sovereigns and who they represent and what
their accountability was.”
Quality of relationships
“The STT did a lot to improve relationships”
Shared knowledge & information
Iterations 1, 2 & part of 3 of Treaty review technical studies
Your organization’s education/
awareness
“We were uneducated. We were ignorant and we no longer
are. People in our community, when the Columbia River
Treaty is brought up, eyes go up and people know what
they're talking about.”
Your own education/awareness
“Basically I didn't even know there was treaty.”
Public education/awareness
“This process allowed for that education and awareness to
occur…they heard [the tribe’s message on the CRT] on the
radio or read it in an article, so I think it did bring a lot of our
message out to the public.”
Understanding of ecological/
biophysical system
“We really progressed the state of understanding of the
Columbia River” and “Everyone is more aware of how the
Treaty has operated in water management”
Understanding of the social
system
“We came away with a better understanding of what
everybody did, what their conditions and objectives were.”
Technical models
Hydrologic Engineering Center Watershed Analysis Tool
(HEC-WAT)
Co-produced science
Estuary modeling
Ability to resolve future disputes
“I think it increased because it was an educational process.
People understand things a little bit more. Also you have this
working relationship amongst the parties.”
Community capacity for decision
making
“it helped decrease our belief that environmental policy is premade and that in fact coming together as a community we
can help shape a direction”
Innovation
Getting fish above Grand Coulee
Programs or initiatives
UCUT & NPCC fish reintroduction investigation
Table 91 shares examples of different byproducts that survey respondents and interviewees
shared in their survey responses and/or interviews. They demonstrate that a number of different
outcomes resulted from the US CRT 2014/2024 Review in addition to the US Regional
Recommendation.
265
6.5 Case Study Discussion
In this section, I discuss the results of my analysis of the US CRT 2014/2024
Review process. I first briefly summarize the findings of my application of the Water
GPA. Then I present lessons learned and recommendations for future processes and
interviewee recommendations. I end this section with a discussion of the caveats and
limitations of this case study before concluding the chapter.
6.5.1 Discussion of Water GPA ‘score’ and implications for governance
The results of the Water GPA analysis reveal a number of areas where the US
CRT 2014/2024 reflected good process practices and others where the process needed
improvement. It reveals which characteristics of the process (i.e., accountability,
inclusivity, and information) promoted or impeded good water governance in the US
Treaty review (Table 92). Therefore, it helps address my third research objective: what
were barriers and building blocks for good water governance?
266
Inclusivity
 Early involvement of
sovereigns
 Ability to influence
policy and technical
issues
 Sovereign-stakeholder
dichotomy
 Resources to
participate
 Inclusion of CTGR
 Better engagement of
stakeholders (both in terms of
quality and timing)
Information
Accountability
Table 92. Summary of Water GPA accountability, information, and inclusivity results
What worked well
What had mixed results
What needed improvement
 Defining decision criteria
 How well
 Transparency with stakeholders
representatives of
sovereigns and
 Clearly define sharing of
 Transparency within
interest groups
decision authority
the SPP
represented their
 Choice of decision process lead
 DOS as a higher
constituencies
 Interpreting and applying
source of
 Guidance from DOS
laws/regulations such as
accountability
(it was helpful but
Executive Order 13175 and what
needed to be offered
makes a sovereign
earlier)
 Outline of next steps
 Utilizing existing
information
 Information sharing
with sovereigns and
select stakeholders
(pre-summer 2013)
 Quality and scope of
technical work
 Sharing audience
appropriate
information
 Information sharing with
sovereigns and stakeholders
(post-summer 2013)
Other
factors
 Facilitation of SRT
 Better understanding of
Canadian views
 Management of strong
personalities
Table 92 summarizes what worked well (i.e., was a building block of good water governance) and
what did not (i.e., was a barrier to good water governance) in the US CRT 2014/2024 Review.
Accountability
Two themes of what worked well and promoted good water governance were the
transparency within the SPP and when the Department of State stepped in and served as a
source of accountability for the US Entity as it led the US CRT 2014/2024. They helped
direct the development of the US Regional Recommendation as well as keep the region
together during the process. However, at the same time the lack of Department of State
involvement early in the process meant that the US CRT 2014/2024 Review had to
redirect its efforts once DOS finally stepped in.
267
Another area which both helped and hindered good water governance was how
accountable representatives were to their constituents. Some US CRT 2014/2024 Review
participants noted that those involved in the review were active liaisons back to their
communities. Others noted that they had concerns about whether representatives were
accurately representing what happened to their leadership and constituents as well as if
representatives for the states could adequately represent the wide array of interests in
their states.
The accountability of the process was probably the most heavily criticized
characteristic of the US CRT 2014/2024 Review process. Participants were unsure of
what the decision criteria were and how much decision authority would ultimately be
shared by the US Entity with participants. Without access to the SRT, stakeholders felt
they were left in the dark during much of the review and therefore the process was not
sufficiently transparent. Some also criticized the decision to not consider public utilities
sovereigns. Along similar lines, some tribes felt the US Entity did not fully follow the
directives in Executive Order 13175 and fully collaborate with them. While they
understood that the US Entity is the expert on the CRT, participants from all groups felt
that the US Entity ended up as not being a good choice of process lead. Some were
concerned that the US Entity was biased towards hydropower and flood risk management
and others felt that the US Entity could not properly represent its constituent interests in
its dual role as convener and participant on the SRT and STT. Finally, several
participants were frustrated that the Department of State did not outline a clear set of next
steps for Phase 3 of the process.
268
Inclusivity
In terms of inclusivity, the decision to engage sovereigns and stakeholders
separately and in different ways was both a strength and weakness of the process. In
some ways, the choice was a positive one. For example, it recognized the distinct rights
sovereigns have in decision making as compared to sovereigns. It also kept the SRT to a
more manageable size. However, the sovereign-stakeholder dichotomy also created a
barrier to good water governance. It created an “us vs. them” mentality, where
stakeholders felt under-represented and as a result viewed the process and the resulting
decision as less legitimate.
Likewise the availability of resources (i.e., money and personnel) was both a
barrier to inclusivity and therefore good water governance as well as a building block.
Those organizations with access to resources were able to meaningfully engage in the
process and produce the technical analysis that helped educate the region and support the
US Regional Recommendation. However, not all participants had access to the resources
they needed to meaningfully participate in the process.
Other inclusivity-related building blocks for good water governance in the US
CRT 2014/2024 Review process include the fact that sovereigns were engaged very early
in the process and that various groups were able to influence policy issues and technical
studies. Both of these things enabled the US Entity to submit a consensus document to
the US Entity.
Commonly cited areas that needed improvement in the US CRT 2014/2024
Review included a better stakeholder engagement process and a better way to include the
Confederated Tribes of the Grand Ronde (CTGR). Interviewees were not sure of how to
269
address these two challenges. In terms of tribal relations and issue of excluding the
CTGR from the SPP, the effort the US Entity made to consult separately was a partial
solution, though it should have started much earlier than it did. Understanding that
sovereigns have special rights and knowing that you need to keep the number of people
in a negotiating room to a reasonable number, stakeholder and some sovereign
participants mentioned that the US Entity develop a separate stakeholder body (i.e., go
through the Federal Advisory Committee Act, or FACA, process12) and find a way for the
SRT (or analogous body) to interface with the stakeholder body.
Information
The areas where information was a building block of good governance in this
decision making process were how the review utilized existing information and the
extensive information sharing effort between sovereigns and select stakeholders before
the summer of 2013. The most mentioned critique regarding information produced and
used in the process was the decision to end information sharing in the summer of 2013
and not release the final technical reports either sovereigns or stakeholders. Participants
understood the Department of State and US Entity’s justification, but at the same time
some wondered if there was some way to share the information and not hurt the US
negotiating position. Others wondered how much Canada did not already now.
Participants shared mixed views about the quality and scope of technical work.
Some noted that the technical advances and studies completed not only helped prepare
the US for negotiations with Canada but also improved the understanding of the CRB and
12
FACA is a federal statute that outlines how a federal advisory committee should be formed and then
operated. FACA guidelines seek to ensure that federal agency decision making is accountable to the public
(Bingham, 2009; Cosens, 2010b).
270
its management. Other participants felt additional or different technical studies should
have been completed and thus were not convinced the information produced was as
robust as it could or should have been. Interviewees also shared that at times the
information shared was overly technical for the audience. That issue decreased over time
as presenters got better and communicating with non-technical audiences, participants
learned more about the system, and STT members helped SRT members digest the
materials.
Context
In the Water GPA, I advocate that water managers and those developing a
decision making process, take an inventory of the context and then identify what about
the context is a barrier and what may be a leverage point (Table 93). I will now examine
how well the US Entity worked to overcome the challenges and capitalize opportunities
presented by the context.
Table 93. Water GPA examination of context in US CRT 2014/2024 Review
Potential Barrier
Potential Leverage Point
 Large geographic extent to cover
 Large number of relevant stakeholders
 Political relationship among tribes,
 Existing coalitions
especially the CTGR
Inclusivity
 Existing professional
 Existing professional relationships
relationships
 Different goals among interested and
affected parties
 FACA rules
 Information collected and
 Concerns about data validity
studies conducted by various
Information
parties
 Disputes over what models to use
 Existing models
 Limited authority of lead organization
 Collective authority of parties
and its ability to share that authority
involved
Accountability
 Lack of trust in lead organization
 Department of State’s
 Differences in opinion about
oversight role
problem/task and/or goal definition
Table 93 lists different aspects of the US CRT 2014/2024 context and how they might pose a
challenge or barrier to or leverage point for good water governance in each of the three other
process categories (inclusivity, information, and accountability).
271
The US Entity tried to address a number of the potential barriers to a good
process, with varying degrees of success. To address the challenge of a large geographic
area, the hosted public meetings around the basin, tried to rotate the SRT meetings, and
offered webinar options at all meetings. Their efforts had moderate success as some
meetings were held around the basin, but most were in Portland and less accessible to
certain groups. The US Entity addressed concerns about data validity by engaging
different sovereigns in the scoping and completion of technical studies. The more
transparent they were the more different groups accepted the information produced.
When groups preferred different models to answer the same question, the US Entity
sometimes used both models. A final area where the US Entity had some success in
addressing a challenge was tackling the problem of different groups’ views of what
should be considered in the Treaty review decision. That is not to say they and other
groups were in complete agreement. Rather, the US Entity was able to keep the region
together through the inclusion of additional domestic issues in the US Regional
Recommendation (and with some help from the Department of State in the form of
pressure to have regional consensus).
The US Entity was less successful in overcoming other barriers. For example, the
US Entity’s successfully avoided going through the FACA process to set up an advisory
committee with stakeholders; however, this actually ended up being a detriment to the
process as stakeholders felt excluded from the process and put up a fight as the US
Regional Recommendation was developed. Also unsuccessful, were the US Entity’s
attempts to contact the Department of State to clarify what product it wanted. The
Department of State was not responsive until late in the process.
272
The US Entity also attempted to leverage other aspects of the context that
presented opportunities for good water governance. It utilized existing studies and models
in its technical work. It took advantage of the Tribal Caucus in the creation of the SPP
and in determining representation on the SRT and STT.
There were also topics that the US Entity did not attempt to address. For example,
it did not explore ways to bring the CTGR into the SRT, but rather asked the CTGR to
reach out to a tribe in the Tribal Caucus to see if it would be possible. Likewise it did not
view its limited authority in the CRT Review as an issue or try to address it. Instead, it
referenced those limitations as reasons to limit the scope of its technical studies to the
frustration of other groups who wanted additional studies like the flood risk management
review. Therefore, depending on your perspective you might see this as an inadequacy of
the process or something that simply could not be addressed.
Other factors
Finally, a few factors of the process outside of degree of accountability, quality of
inclusivity, and robustness of information also emerged as important in the US CRT
2014/2024 Review. Unfortunately, poor facilitation of the SRT and strong personalities
were a barrier to good water governance. Participants also felt that the US Treaty review
could also have done a better job in exposing participants to Canadian views of the
Treaty and its future in order to promote transboundary understanding.
6.5.2 Lessons Learned
Based on what the participants identified as working well and what needed
improvement in the US CRT 2014/2024 Review process, I identified several lessons
learned for future decision making processes in this basin or similar basins facing similar
273
challenges (Table 94). This addresses my third research question: what are lessons
learned for good water governance? These lessons are most applicable to the US portion
of the Columbia River Basin, but may also have applicability in similar basins. I discuss
the lessons in no particular order.
Table 94. US CRT 2014/2024 Review lessons learned for future processes
Recommendations and Lessons Learned
Identify a neutral convener to lead the process
Develop a way for sovereigns and stakeholders to both participate in the process and engage
each other, while respecting sovereignty
Sometimes it may be worth the administrative effort to develop a more inclusive process
Consider a tiered approach for engagement in larger scale processes
Clearly specify how decision authority will be shared (ideally a collaborative process)
Develop an understanding of either 1) what you want the end product to look like or 2) criteria for
a successful decision and stick with them as much as possible
Find a way to re-evaluate and incorporate new decision criteria if new information comes
available
Identify ways to equitably allocate resources
Table 94 lists the lessons learned during the US CRT 2014/2024 Review for future water
governance decision making processes in the basin or in similar basins.
The first lesson is to identify a neutral convener to lead the process. In general,
participants felt that the US Entity may not have been the best choice to lead the US CRT
2014/2024 Review. Different interviewees felt the US Entity was not neutral and others
felt it was too neutral and could not advocate on behalf of the interests it normally
represents. Many participants recommended identifying a neutral convener to lead future
processes, but could not identify who that might be in the CRB on Treaty-related issues.
A couple of people suggested the Department of State for this particular issue. Often
there is not much choice in who leads a process as that leadership may be decided by that
organization has the authority to make the decision. If an agency not considered neutral
274
must lead the process because it is the agency with the authority to make a particular
decision a basin could consider two alternatives. First, consider identifying someone from
the agency to act as the neutral lead and someone else to represent the agency’s interests
(i.e., separate out the convener and participant roles). Alternatively, identify a coconvener to reduce concerns about bias. In some ways having both the Corps and BPA
lead the process helped address some concerns (though it also had its challenges).
A second recommendation from process participants is to develop a way for
sovereigns and stakeholders to both participate in the process and engage each
other, while respecting sovereignty. In the US CRT 2014/2024 Review, sovereigns
appreciated the recognition of their unique status and rights that differentiate them from
stakeholders. Respecting sovereignty is important for good governance. However,
stakeholders are also important interested and affected parties that should be
meaningfully engaged in a decision making process. Meaningful engagement of
stakeholders involves appropriate representation of those groups so they can access
information in the decision process, contribute their views to the process, and work with
sovereigns in order to work through and address different positions. Two ways to do this
are 1) setting up a separate stakeholder body analogous to the SRT (and providing
opportunities for the groups to interface) or 2) forming one body consisting of
stakeholders and sovereigns and negotiating what sovereign or stakeholder status means
for participation and authority in that group. One participant recommended:
I think that if the U.S. Entity is looking for something like an advisory
group that can inform it's negotiations with Canada, I think you're going to
have to boil it down, you're going to have to get someone from Power,
someone from the Tribes, someone from everything else to sort of, if not
in the room, at least sitting in the conference room next to the room
275
providing feedback, and an opportunity to caucus with whoever the U.S.
Entity is at that point in time. In some fashion, provide them the type of
advice that would allow them to negotiate successfully. - Hydropower
interest
Understanding that is it important to engage stakeholders and sovereigns,
sometimes it may be worth the administrative effort to develop a more inclusive
process. Going through administrative processes (e.g., following the FACA to set up an
advisory committee, completing background checks and setting up non-disclosure
agreements to protect documents from a FOIA request, etc.) is likely to be time
consuming early in the process. However, it may end up saving time and energy later in
the process as well as avoid the possibility of those who were excluded to derail the
process or decision. For the US CRT 2014/2024 Review, finding a way to engage
stakeholders may have prevented the push back the US Entity experienced from various
stakeholder groups when it released the Working Draft of the US Regional
Recommendation.
Fourth, in larger scale processes consider a tiered approach for engagement.
For example, empower representatives in groups like the SRT to go out to and engage
other parties including their constituencies. One irrigation stakeholder recommended:
Something I think would be helpful would maybe to be sharing a bit of the
information sharing aspect with the different state agencies and have them
go back to their stakeholders. They would know who they need to talk to
and go, "Here's the thing you should really care about. We want your
input," and then feed it up instead of being all have to, "Go to the Corps
meetings." - Irrigation stakeholder
This approach may have a number of positive benefits. For example, it will likely reduce
the burden on the process lead to outreach to all groups. In addition, state and local
elected officials and agencies may have a better understanding of who are the interests in
276
their jurisdiction and therefore are better able to ensure those interests are informed and
have an opportunity to give input than a federal agency may be. Finally, by explicitly
listing outreach as a duty of different representatives you begin to hold those
representatives accountable for what goes on in the room and what decision is made as
they are now, in part, responsible for bringing the basin along with the group as they
make a decision. This of course requires resources and so the process lead and
representatives need to determine how to obtain and allocate resources for the task.
Next, clearly specify how decision authority will be shared. In the US CRT
2014/2024 Review some interviewees were not sure who was making the
recommendation to the US Department of State. Others knew the US Entity retained the
authority to make its recommendation but they did not understand how input from
sovereigns and stakeholders would be incorporated into the document. Participants in this
review wanted a collaborative process where everyone had a say in the decision.
A related, sixth lesson is to develop an understanding of either 1) what you
want the end product to look like or 2) criteria for a successful decision and stick
with them as much as possible. The US Entity and SRT tried to develop a framework
for the end product with their 5-50-500 model. However, the decision criteria were not as
clearly defined. In the end, regional consensus served as the de facto criteria for a
successful recommendation. In future processes, those with oversight and/or those
receiving the end product should clarify what they want or do not want early in the
process.
Seventh, if (or more likely when) new information comes available find a way
to re-evaluate and incorporate new decision criteria. In some ways, the US CRT
277
2014/2024 navigated the process of adapting to new information fairly well. The US
Entity and PNW were able to depart from their original 5-50-500 model as well as come
to terms with the fact that the final technical reports would not be released. At the same
time, even after the Department of State clarified that it wanted a high-level policy
document supported by the entire region and the US Entity redirected its efforts, it was
still not clear what regional consensus looked like.
Finally, when possible find ways to equitably allocate resources. In water
governance decision making process, different groups come to the table with different
resources available to them. Access to funding and staff resources will dictate how much
they can engage in a process, making resource access an issue of inclusivity (i.e.,
representation and ability to influence), accountability (i.e., procedural justice), and
information (i.e., information sharing). In different situations, resource availability will
be an aspect of the context that serves as a barrier or building block to good water
governance. In order to explore ways to equitably allocating resources, agencies may
need to involve the legislative branch in order to navigate or remove potential restrictions
attached to funding. Specific recommendations related to the next phase and potential
Treaty negotiations include distributing technical study funding to different topics (e.g.,
hydropower, flood risk management, ecosystem function, navigation, water supply, etc.)
either in equal portions or in a more equitable manner.
I do not mean to suggest that any of these lessons and recommendations are easily
accomplished. Each includes its own challenges (Table 95). For example, many are often
resource intensive in a time of budget and staff reductions. Several of the
recommendations involve making tough or controversial decisions.
278
Table 95. Potential challenges to following lessons learned
Lesson Learned/Recommendation
Challenges
Identify a neutral convener to lead the
process
 No neutral entity may exist in the basin
 A non-neutral entity is the one with the authority to
run the process
Develop a way for sovereigns and
stakeholders to both participate in the
process and engage each other, while
respecting sovereignty
 Basins with large numbers of sovereigns and
stakeholders make it difficult to form a body with a
manageable number of people
 Figuring out how to distinguish between sovereign
and stakeholder roles could be controversial
Sometimes it may be worth the
administrative effort to develop a more
inclusive process
Consider a tiered approach for
engagement in larger scale processes
 Doing this will be time intensive and may delay the
start of the process
 There may not be enough time
 Requires all representatives to commit to this
responsibility
 Requires process lead to give up some control of
outreach
 Representatives need resources to actively engage
their constituencies
Clearly specify how decision authority will
 Even if you are clear on how decision authority is
be shared (ideally a collaborative
shared groups may not agree with that set up
process)
Develop an understanding of either 1)
what you want the end product to look
like or 2) criteria for a successful decision
and stick with them as much as possible
 Can take a lot of time
 Once developed it is easy to forget them and not
loop back and make sure the decision is in line with
the established criteria
Find a way to re-evaluate and
incorporate new decision criteria if new
information comes available
 Requires the process pause and take time to reevaluate, re-affirm, or update decision criteria
Identify ways to equitably allocate
resources
 Groups may be legally constrained in how they
allocate funds
 Need to determine what “equitable” allocation
means for the specific process at hand
Table 95 documents some of the potential challenges a process lead may face in incorporating
the lessons learned from the US CRT 2014/2024 Review into future water governance decision
making processes. I developed this table based on interviewee observations and
recommendations as well as my own knowledge of the process and common process challenges.
The analysis of the US CRT 2014/2024 Review byproducts also reveals what
those in the basin prioritize as important for the next phases of the Treaty review and
other water governance processes. Between two and four interviewees mentioned that
they wanted to see more transboundary conversations and actions with British Columbia,
increased collaboration with other groups, increased trust in others involved and more co-
279
produced science. Future processes in the CRB, including Phase 3 and potential
negotiations with Canada, might consider pursuing these goals.
6.5.3 Caveats and Limitation
My case study analysis and recommendations include several caveats and
limitations. For instance, the number of people surveyed is a distinct limitation of this
research. With only 28 surveys statistical analysis is limited to basic statistics. One way
to overcome this limitation in future research is to distribute the survey to all participants
in the process. A limitation of my interview analysis is that I was the sole coder of the
transcripts. To strengthen my findings, I could have other people also code my interview
transcripts, check inter-coder reliability, refine my codes, and update my analysis.
Another limitation of this study centers on the fact that I asked participants to selfreport their experiences and share their perceptions. While I interviewed most
participants within a year of the end of the decision making process, many had moved
onto new projects and the Treaty issues had already begun to fade from their memory.
Some participants even acknowledged that there were some things about the process they
could not remember clearly. There also might be a tendency for participants to focus on
and therefore more frequently report negative, rather than positive experiences.
In some instances participants shared conflicting narratives of events or
explanations of why something happened during the review. In some ways a variation in
views is to be expected as participants engaged in the review in different ways and
therefore had different vantage points in the process. To address this issue, I identified a
participant’s affiliation or their involvement in the Treaty review so that the reader could
understand where that participant’s view might be coming from (without specifically
280
identifying whose view I reported and thereby breaking confidentiality). I also used
multiple sources in my case studies to draw my conclusions. To verify, or ground-truth,
different narratives I decided needed three sources to confirm the narrative. For example,
I might use observations from two different people and a document (from a different
source than those two people) to verify what happened during the review.
6.6 Chapter Conclusion
In this chapter I presented the second of two case study applications of the Water
Governance Process Assessment (Water GPA). Through this case study, focused on
Phase 2 of the US CRT 2014/2024 Review, I sought to answer two of my research
questions, namely: How can the characteristics identified in the Water GPA be used to
evaluate a water governance process, and What are lessons learned for good water
governance??
I began the chapter with a description of the US review of the Treaty, referred to
as the US CRT 2014/2024 Review. I described how the US Entity led a process which
had three major components: a sovereign participation process, stakeholder engagement,
and technical studies. After describing the review I provided a narrative description of
how the US Entity worked with those in the Pacific Northwest region to develop the US
Regional Recommendation in order to submit it to the US Department of State in
December 2013.
I then evaluated the US CRT 2014/2024 Review using the Water Governance
Process Assessment (Water GPA) as my framework for analysis. I collected data via
surveys and semi-structured interviews of process participants as well as document
analysis of the US Regional Recommendation. From this analysis I identified a number
281
of barriers and building blocks to good water governance in this decision making process
(Table 92 and Table 93). Lessons learned from the US CRT 2014/2024 Review include:
1) identify a neutral convener to lead the process, 2) develop a way for sovereigns and
stakeholders to both participate in the process and engage each other, while respecting
sovereignty, 3) sometimes it may be worth the administrative effort to develop a more
inclusive process, 4) consider a tiered approach for engagement in larger scale processes,
5) clearly specify how decision authority will be shared, 5) develop an understanding of
either a) what you want the end product to look like or b) criteria for a successful
decision and stick with them as much as possible, 7) find a way to re-evaluate and
incorporate new decision criteria if new information comes available, and 8) identify
ways to equitably allocate resources (Table 94).
A common theme throughout this analysis was the differences between the
experiences and views of stakeholders and sovereigns. While the SPP had many strengths
(e.g., recognizing the unique status of sovereigns) the separate stakeholder engagement
was insufficient and the US Entity had to embark on a major outreach initiative in order
to develop a consensus document that all parties could agree to. Trying to find a way to
engage both sovereigns and stakeholders in a way that respects sovereignty and keeps the
committees to a manageable size will be difficult, but will likely improve aspects of
accountability (e.g., transparency and lead agency responsiveness), information (e.g.,
information sharing and quality) and inclusivity (e.g., representation and early
involvement). That issue may be the lynchpin for future processes and merits further
investigation to see exactly how important it may be for other water governance decisions
and what possible solutions may be.
282
7 Investigating the Link between Process and Outcomes
One goal of this study is to investigate the link between the characteristics of a
decision making process and its outcomes. In this chapter, I answer the following
research question: what characteristics of a water governance process may contribute to
water governance outcomes? My goal is to verify whether or not improving a process
will improve the decision being made as well as other outcomes (i.e., byproducts). My
hope is that with this information, water managers will be able to better leverage and
devote resources to those aspects of a process that will improve their decisions.
To answer my research question I use the Water Governance Process Assessment
(Water GPA, presented in Chapter 2) as a framework for my analysis. I start out this
chapter by briefly describing my methodology before presenting the results of my
analysis for two case studies: United States 2014/2024 Columbia River Treaty Review
and the British Columbia CRT Review. I conclude with a discussion of my findings
including caveats, limitations of my research, and suggestions for future research.
7.1 Methodology
I examine the link between a decision making process and its outcomes via two
case studies. 13 These case studies serve as empirical examinations of what theory and
practice propose to be true: that ‘good’ processes lead to ‘good’ outcomes. I collected
data for these case studies using semi-structured interviews. I interviewed 22 participants
of the United States 2014/2024 Columbia River Treaty (CRT) Review and 16 participants
of the British Columbia CRT Review. In my sampling approach, I interviewed review
13
In this section, I provide a brief overview of the methods I used in this portion of my analysis. I provide a
more extensive explanation of my methods in Chapter 3.
283
participants with various backgrounds who were involved in the review in a variety of
different ways. 14 During the interviews for the two case studies, the United States
2014/2024 Columbia River Treaty Review and the British Columbia CRT Review, I
asked participants if the accountability, information, inclusivity, and context of the
review process shaped or influenced the outcomes of the decision making process. I also
inquired if any other aspects of the review process or outside factors influenced the
decision (in my case studies that would be either the US Regional Recommendation or
BC Provincial Decision). I also asked the review participants to identify the three
byproducts from the process that were most important to them and then up to three
byproducts they wished had resulted from the process (or wished increased more than
they did). I then asked them to explain what about the process contributed to, worked
against, or would have helped promote positive changes in the byproducts.
Using QSR NVivo software, I manually coded the interview transcripts
deductively using the Water GPA; that is I identified all statements where a participant
talked about some aspect of the process influencing or not influencing the decision or
byproducts. I coded these statements for which aspect of the process the participant was
referring to (i.e., accountability, inclusivity, context, and information as well as their
secondary codes (see Appendix D for list). Statements that did not fit under any of these
four primary codes were coded as “Other.” I then inductively coded the statements in the
“Other” code to identifying subthemes that may explain what influenced the two review
decisions and their byproducts. This inductive coding process is important for identifying
potential rival explanations. I then went through all those coded statements a second time
14
A breakdown of who I interviewed is available in Chapter 3.
284
to identify the kind of influence or lack of influence the participant discussed. Table 96
lists these codes for statements related to the decision and Table 97 for byproducts.
Table 96. Additional codes for analysis of link between a process and its decision
Code
Explanation
Some aspect of the process influenced the structure or content of the
Influenced content
decision
Increased support
Some aspect of the process increased participant support for the decision
Decreased support
Some aspect of the process decreased participant support for the decision
No influence
The process did not influence the decision in terms of content or support
Other
The process had some other impact on the decision
Table 96 displays the codes I used to document potential links between the characteristics of a
process and the decision.
Table 97. Additional codes for analysis of link between a process and its byproducts
Code
Explanation
Increased byproduct
Some aspect of the process promoted the emergence or increase of a
byproduct
Worked against
byproduct
Some aspect of the process impeded the emergence or increase of a
byproduct
No influence
The aspect of the process had no impact on the byproduct
Recommendations or statements about how if the process was run or
structured differently, it would have contributed to a byproduct
Table 97 displays the codes I used to document potential links between the characteristics of a
process and the process byproducts.
Would have helped
7.2 Analysis: The Influence of the Process on the Decision
Both review processes sought to answer the question “should we terminate,
continue with, or modify the Columbia River Treaty?” I consider the answer to this
question, the “decision” which the review process may or may not have influenced. Both
reviews provided their answer to this question to their respective national governments
via a written document. In the US CRT 2014/2024 Review this ‘decision’ was actually a
recommendation to the US Department of State. The US CRT 2014/2024 Review refers
to this document as the “US Regional Recommendation. The BC CRT Review submitted
a provincial level recommendation, which it calls the “BC Provincial Decision,” to
285
Canada’s Department of Foreign, International Affairs, Trade and Development. In the
following subsections, I explain what characteristics of each process influenced the two
reviews’ decision documents, starting with the BC CRT Review results.
7.2.1 BC CRT 2014/2024 Review Results
Interviewees noted that all four aspects of the Water GPA influenced the BC
Provincial Decision to some degree (Table 98). However, some aspects of the process
were more influential than others. As in the US CRT 2014/2024 Review, accountability
and inclusivity were most commonly reported as having influenced the content of the BC
Provincial Decision or increasing support for the document. However, unlike in the other
case study, information had a larger impact on the BC Provincial Decision and its
support. I did not see any salient themes of other aspects of the process influencing the
decision, just a couple of one-off examples. Next, I examine what aspects of each of the
four Water GPA Process categories and other aspects of the process played a role in the
outcome of the BC CRT Review.
Table 98. Statements on what influenced the BC Provincial Decision
Number of Coded References
Contributed to BC Provincial Decision
No
Increased
Influenced
Other
influence
support
content
influence
Accountability
13
2
0
1
Context
0
0
4
2
Inclusivity
11
10
0
5
Information
7
5
3
Decreased
support
5
3
3
0
2
Other
0
0
0
1
1
Table 98 displays the number of references noting that the Water GPA process characteristics
and an ‘other’ category influenced (i.e., increased support, influenced content, decreased
support, or other influence) or had no influence on the BC Provincial Decision.
Accountability
The primary component of accountability that increased the support for the BC
Provincial Decision was the responsiveness of the lead ministry. By structuring the
286
community engagement based on the recommendations of the Local Governments
Committee (LGC) and community members, responding to requests for additional
information, and following through on other commitments, the BC Ministry of Energy
and Mines team built trust with community members. That trust helped participants feel
more comfortable with the BC Provincial Decision even if they did not agree with every
piece of the decision. Likewise, the responsiveness of the lead ministry meant that, in
large part, the voices of the BC basin communities are reflected in the document
(discussed further in inclusivity below).
Another factor of accountability that influenced the content of the BC Provincial
Decision was the advice given to the BC Provincial Review Team on how to craft a
document for future use in international negotiations. Crafting a document with 14 high
level principles based on that advice did decrease support for the BC Provincial Decision
and made them more skeptical that the provincial and federal governments would
actually pursue the principles outlined in the document. Some wanted more specificity
and detail in the document in order to have a better picture of what BC (and Canada)
might pursue in negotiations with the US.
Inclusivity
Ten of the sixteen interviewees commented on how the inclusivity of the BC CRT
Review influenced the BC Provincial Decision in some way. In regards to content, a few
interviewees felt that environmental and ecosystem considerations would not have been
included in the BC Provincial Decision without their or others’ insistence that it be part
of the recommendations. A member of one of the review technical committees shared:
I'd say in the course of their review process for my agency, it was more
on the outcome side, in terms of reviewing, commenting and trying to
287
shape that way. I'm not saying that was totally ineffective. I think we were
able to register comments and our perspectives on our things. I did see
some evidence of that in the strategic recommendation that BC ended up
making. There was some mention of climate change and the environment
and ecosystems issues did seem to come in. -Technical Committee
member
Similarly, participants felt that a discussion of the Treaty impacts on BC communities
and a need for compensation was included because they loudly voiced their view and the
BC CRT Review team listened. A member of the Sounding Board said:
I believe the Provincial Decision is reflective of what I heard in
discussion. Again the Columbia River Treaty Review Team always tried
to work towards consensus when engaging the Sounding Board. And I did
a total turnaround from the beginning of the process to the end of the
process. I actually went into it [the process] with the position that the
Treaty should be terminated. - Sounding Board Member
Participants cited a few different reasons why they supported the BC Provincial
Decision including, seeing their views reflected in the BC Provincial Decision and other
Treaty review documentation, feeling listened to by the BC CRT Review team, and being
actively engaged through various Treaty review. Making sure participants felt wellrepresented and heard seemed to be a strategy of the BC Provincial Team. One team
member noted:
We put pretty much everything we heard in the draft Consultation Report.
And also after each community meeting we put down the comments we
received on the sticky [notes]…because we wanted people to see what
they said, written [down] and reflected [in the documents]. They could see
themselves and their comments in that. So they said they felt they were
heard, even those who didn't agree with the final Provincial Decision. The
majority said, “We support the general direction you are going in.”
The First Nations participants I interviewed noted that their consultation did not
have much of an effect, and maybe a slight negative effect, on their view of the BC
Provincial Decision because while they had some limited influence on the text, their
288
views are not fully captured in the document. They also seemed to want to wait and see
what actually happens moving forward. One First Nation representative said:
Well, I think first of all, designing a fancier window and façade doesn't
make the building any more structurally sound. Having a better and
fancier engagement process with us doesn't mean that we've achieved a
result…You still need two partners to dance, right? I would say most
importantly that both levels of government [federal and provincial] need to
understand that they have to get to a place where we are addressing and
doing our best to resolve and mitigate and provide restitution for the types
of impacts that the Columbia River has had historically. - First Nation
representative
Information
Two aspects of information influenced the BC Provincial Decision and its support
in the region. First was that the Treaty alternative scenarios revealed the impacts of the
different options, allowing participants to choose their preferred option based on what
scenario best matched their views. In some cases, this information convinced some
participants who initially favored termination of the Treaty to later support keeping and
modifying the Treaty instead. A member of the BC Provincial CRT Review Team
described the situation as follows:
That support for the decision was a result of clearly and objectively
describing the implications of the different potential scenarios for the
different Treaty options. People had the opportunity to really compare
those alternatives and then we asked them to make their own decision and
provide us with advice--as opposed to not giving them that choice. That
was risky, because the majority of the population or people we engaged
said, “well you should terminate the Treaty.” Government felt otherwise,
so there was that disconnect. But we were willing to take that risk and go
to government and if government makes the decision that was different
from what we had heard from consultation then government would have to
provide the rationale on why. - BC CRT Review Team member
289
A second way information influenced the content of the Provincial Decision was
that information shared by the communities, regarding the impacts of the Treaty, was
included in the document. A member of the Local Governments Committee (LGC) said:
I think the information that the Province got from consultation with the
region has influenced the Decision and specifically, I think that some of
the detail around impact to communities, sharing benefits, those kinds of
things were addressed in the Review. I don't know if they would have
necessarily been addressed to the same degree. - LGC member
Two members of the Sounding Board (SB) and a representative of a First Nation
noted that some of the information collection efforts and technical studies lowered their
view of the BC Provincial Decision or influenced its content. They felt that the BC CRT
Review team was biased in what information it used and technical studies it conducted.
In their view, this bias meant that the review process did not consider information that
likely would have resulted in different principles in the BC Provincial Recommendation.
The SB members specifically referred to using the Water Use Planning (WUP)
information in the Treaty review technical studies. WUP plans in the basin use the
Columbia River Treaty operations in their assumptions, which some of the SB members
thought was not appropriate when exploring scenarios where the Treaty is terminated.
The representative of the First Nation spoke of the decision to only use a postEnlightenment scientific methods versus an approach based on Traditional Ecological
Knowledge (TEK).
Most, but not all, of the members of the review technical committees noted that
the details of technical work done as part of the BC CRT Review did not have a large
impact on the BC Provincial Decision because the document was written at such a high
level. One Provincial Ministry also shared, “I've worked for the agency for almost 20
290
years, and sometimes good technical work just doesn't influence things. That's life.”
However, some felt that the results of the technical studies may have a much greater role
in any negotiations with the US.
Context
Interviewees did not comment much on how the context of the social-ecological
system in Canada influenced the BC Provincial Decision. A closer examination of their
comments reveals that while context did not directly impact the BC Provincial Decision,
the context did impact the process and indirectly influence the BC Provincial Decision.
For example, multiple interviewees noted how the different jurisdictions for the federal
and provincial governments and the BC-Canada Agreement of 1963 influenced who led
the process and what it entailed. The BC CRT Review team also leveraged existing
relationships and the work the done by the Columbia Basin Trust (CBT) and newly
formed LGC to build trust in the review team and design the Treaty review process. Both
of those impacts of the basin context as discussed above in the “Accountability” and
“Inclusivity” subsections above later influenced the BC Provincial Decision. Another
theme several interviewees talked about was how the residents of the basin demanded
their voice be included in the document because they were not going to allow the
provincial government to ignore them like the federal government did in the original
Treaty negotiations. One resident of the basin said:
We have to go back to the initial insult, right. What happened in the past
dictated what is going on today. There was no way we were not going to
have a say in what's going on in our own backyard. - BC basin resident
All three interviewees involved in the First Nations consultation process discussed
how past experiences with consultation (or lack of consultation) made them wary of the
291
Treaty review process. The two First Nations representatives also discussed how they
disagreed with the decision for the Province of BC to take the lead on the Treaty review,
instead of Federal Canada and the resulting BC Provincial Decision.
7.2.2 US CRT 2014/2024 Review Results
In the US CRT 2014/2024 Review the Water GPA categories of accountability
and inclusivity had the most influence on the US Regional Recommendation, both in
terms of what is included in the document and increasing support for the document
(Table 99). The other two categories had limited influence. Very few aspects of the
process outside of these four categories seemed to influence the Regional
Recommendation. Next, I provide a more detailed explanation of how each category
impacted the Regional Recommendation.
Table 99. Statements on what influenced the US Regional Recommendation
Number of Coded References
Contributed to US Regional
Recommendation
Other
No
influence influence
Increased
Influenced
support
content
Accountability
10
16
5
3
Context
0
6
2
1
Inclusivity
15
38
2
7
Information
5
5
2
Decreased
support
13
3
2
10
1
Other
0
1
0
1
1
Table 99 displays the number of references noting that the Water GPA process characteristics
and an ‘other’ category had one of four types of influence (increased support, influenced content,
decreased support, or other influence) or no influence on the US Regional Recommendation.
Accountability
Various aspects of accountability influenced the content of and support for the US
Regional Recommendation. Two factors that worked together to influence both the
support and content of the US Recommendation were the criterion for the decision (i.e.,
consensus) and the US Department of State’s guidance that the region deliver a highlevel recommendation. As one Sovereign Review Team (SRT) described it:
292
They said, "If this is a mess we are not doing it. If the states are on one
side, and the tribes on the other side, the federal agencies are fighting with
each other, and you don't come in with a consensus document, we’re
going to drop this like a hot potato,” and the Inter-Agency Policy
Committee agreed with them, “Don't bring us a mess. Bring us a
consensus recommendation.” -SRT member
The various sovereigns and stakeholders worked together to find a compromise that was
acceptable to all parties, because different parties wanted the Department of State to
initiate negotiations with Canada, and the Department of State said it would only consider
doing so if there was regional support for a high level Regional Recommendation.
Leadership also influenced the Regional Recommendation. Treaty review
participants discussed how the US Entity was able to exert control over some pieces of
the Regional Recommendation because of its leadership position. Other participants
noted that various stakeholder interests made it into the document because the US Entity
was responsive to those requests, albeit late in the process. For this reason the participants
largely support the US Regional Recommendation as a whole even though they disagree
with some components of the document.
Two aspects of accountability decreased support for the Regional
Recommendation. First, stakeholders mentioned that federal agencies could have better
represented their constituencies. Second, some noted that the need for a high-level
document meant that many pieces of the Recommendation are open to interpretation and
do not clearly identify the region’s interests. Some participants are skeptical that the
Department of State will accept the Regional Recommendation because the
recommendations lack clarity and seem contradictory.
293
Inclusivity
Inclusivity was the most commonly mentioned component of the process that
influenced both the support for and content of the Regional Recommendation. The most
cited aspect of inclusivity was representation. More specifically participants shared that
being involved in the process enabled groups to insert at least some of what they wanted
in the document. Everyone’s voice is represented in some way in the Regional
Recommendation. If you look at the text of the public comments on the draft versions of
the Regional Recommendation and the final version of the document, you see that in
several instances language in the Regional Recommendation is identical to the comments.
A few interviewees noted that the US Entity could have written the Regional
Recommendation with a very small group of people without the arduous US CRT
2014/2024 Review process and that it would have looked very similar to what the region
produced. However, they felt that version of the document would not have been accepted
by the region, even if it was identical to what the US Entity actually submitted to the
Department of State. Others disagreed with this view and talked about how the
involvement of the tribes and Department of the Interior agencies on the SRT greatly
influenced the content of the Regional Recommendation in regards to ecosystem-based
function. They noted that without those groups, ecosystem-based function would not
have been included to the extent that it was. One SRT member said, “We couldn't have
gotten ecosystem function if the tribes weren't at the table and very bold.”
In some discussions about how representation influenced the US Regional
Recommendation, interviewees commented on how different groups were able to
influence the content of the Regional Recommendation--but not for the better.
294
Environmental groups and others thought the hydropower interests had too much
influence on the document. The hydropower, irrigation, and navigation interests thought
that the views of the tribes and environmental interests were over-represented. For better
or worse, depending on your views, the US CRT 2014/2024 Review’s approach resulted
in a document where a wide range of views are represented in the text because different
parties had a voice. With their voice represented, those parties were more willing to
recognize the US Regional Recommendation as legitimate.
A theme of what influenced support for the Regional Recommendation was
spending time working together and building trust and understanding. Even more
specifically SRT members talked about sitting in the same room during meetings. One
SRT member shared:
The meetings were incredibly helpful, I think to everyone…It was really
the first time there was a more public hearing in the region on a lot of
grievance issues and you got to learn where different people stand on the
issues. You get to know people and relationships and context. That was
extremely helpful. - SRT member
The primary theme in terms of inclusivity decreasing support for the Regional
Recommendation is a lack of stakeholder representation in certain components of the
Treaty review. This makes sense as how the US Entity structured (i.e., the inclusion of
only sovereigns on the SRT) the representation was one of the primary criticisms of the
US CRT 2014/2024 Review. Although being excluded from the SRT did make them
more skeptical of the process and document, stakeholders were able to eventually support
the Regional Recommendation. They shared that the US Entity was able to overcome the
lack of stakeholder representation on the SRT and STT through its stakeholder
engagement efforts in 2013. Through those outreach efforts and the two public comment
295
periods stakeholders were able to voice their opinions, and because the region needed
consensus, the US Entity needed to include those stakeholder opinions even when they
contradicted SRT members’ views. One hydropower participant stated:
I think in the end, them doing their extra outreach efforts and taking into
consideration what our concerns were and actually having those
considerations reflected in the final recommendations that were submitted
to the Department of State were good, and in the end, it turned out okay.
- Hydropower participant
Information
Most interviewees reported that the information produced during the US CRT
2014/2024 Review did not influence the US Regional Recommendation. They explained
that this was the case for a couple of different reasons. First, while the US Treaty review
included extensive technical studies, a high-level policy recommendation did not have
room for technical details nor did the Department of State want technical details. Second,
since the technical studies were not completed by the submission of the US Regional
Recommendation in December 2013, the SRT in particular was not able to identify a
specific scenario or Treaty alternative to recommend to the US Department of State.
A couple of individuals did share that some of the information produced in the
review was seen in the Regional Recommendation. A navigation stakeholder noted that
some of the information they provided was reflected in the document. A hydropower
participant also shared that the analysis examining the value of the Canadian Entitlement
supported the recommendation to reduce it. Two other participants noted that the
approach to the Treaty review’s technical studies negatively influenced the content or
understanding of the US Regional Recommendation. They felt that if different or
additional studies were done, the Regional Recommendation would have been better
296
informed and the region would have a better understanding of what was meant by the
language in the document. A member of the SRT shared:
We could have modeled different approaches of flood risk management as
part of this process. That would have meant that we would have had a
more informed Regional Recommendation. - Tribal SRT representative
While the content of the studies did not influence the content of the Regional
Recommendation very much, a few interviewees noted the information sharing efforts in
the US CRT 2014/2024 Review increased their support of the document. A few review
participants also noted that the information will be useful if the US and Canada decide to
negotiate. So while the information had less influence on the development of the
Regional Recommendation it is important for a future phase of the decision making
process. This concept is encapsulated in a quote from an STT member:
I think, then in going forward, a lot of the information that we produced-that is much more specific in detail than what actually went into the
recommendation…Although the specifics might not have been quite
critical then, going forward for negotiations with Canada that will be
extremely important, and that's one reason why the final reports were
never released. - STT member
Context
Participants noted that context had some limited influence on the US Regional
Recommendation. For example, the risk-averse nature of the Corps and BPA meant the
US Regional Recommendation was very conservative on certain topics, such as flood risk
management. Some participants also felt the US Regional Recommendation was in part
influenced by the desire to right past wrongs against the tribes. Others noted the ability of
the hydropower interests to use their political power to rally the PNW Congressional
Delegation and more strongly assert their views.
297
Context influenced the document indirectly as well. For example, an Executive
Order was cited as the document that gave the US Entity the authority to lead the US
CRT 2014/2024 Review and as the lead agency meant the US Entity had greater
influence over the content of the Regional Recommendation. Another indirect factor was
the scale of the basin and how with such a large geographic area, the US Regional
Recommendation needed to accommodate a wide range of issues and views.
7.3 The Influence of the Process on Byproducts
In addition to the decision(s), processes also produced other outcomes. I call these
byproducts because they are not typically the targeted outcome of a decision making
process. Rather they are simply consequences or offshoots of the process. They are
important to examine because they then become the context for other future processes.
A process can also influence byproducts and in the following subsection of this
chapter I explore how the process influenced the various byproducts reported by
participants in the two reviews of the Columbia River Treaty. As described above in my
methodology overview and more extensively in Chapter 3, I asked the review participants
to identify the three byproducts from the process that were most important to them and up
to three byproducts they wished had resulted from the process (or wished increased more
than they did). I then asked participants to explain what about the process contributed to,
worked against, or would have promoted positive changes in the byproducts. Next I
present the results of analysis of the links between process and byproducts in the BC
CRT Review and then share my results from the US CRT 2014/2024 Review case study.
298
7.3.1 BC CRT Review Results
In their conversations about byproducts and what influenced them, participants of
the BC CRT Review mostly commented on how different aspects of the process
contributed to various products in a positive way (Table 100). They identified very few
things that either impeded or did not have an influence. The characteristics of the review
that contributed most to the Treaty review byproducts were inclusivity and information
(Table 100). BC Treaty review participants shared a variety of examples of how the four
Water GPA categories and other factors promoted various byproducts (Table 101). I
explain the emergent themes from the examples in the following subsections.
Table 100. Statements on what influenced byproducts in the BC CRT Review
Number of Coded References
Contributed to
Impeded
Would have
No influence
byproduct
byproduct
helped
Accountability
15
0
3
0
Context
9
0
0
0
Inclusivity
30
2
1
2
Information
20
0
3
0
Other
7
1
0
0
Table 100 displays the number of coded references noting that the four Water GPA process
characteristics and an ‘other’ category contributed to, impeded, would have helped, or had no
influence on byproducts of the BC CRT Review.
299
TANGIBLE
Table 101. What influenced BC CRT Review byproducts
Byproduct
Accountability Context
Economic opportunities
Weak
Programs or initiatives
Weak
Moderate
RELATIONAL
Coalitions
Communication
Level of conflict and
hostility
Mutual-shared
understanding
Quality of relationships
Weak
KNOWLEDGE
CAPACITY-BUILDING
Other
Moderate
Weak
Weak
Moderate
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Strong
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Moderate
Moderate
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Moderate
Weak
Strong
Weak
Weak
Moderate
Community capacity
Weak
Weak
Weak
Human capital
Weak
Innovation
Weak
Social capital
Institutional capacity
Weak
Weak
Understanding of other’s
views, positions, etc.
Co-produced science
Public educationawareness
Shared knowledge &
information
Understanding of
ecological system
Understanding of the
social system
Ability to resolve disputes
Info
Weak
Trust in others involved
Trust in the lead agency
Inclusivity
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
OTHER
Moderate
Weak
Moderate
Table 101 displays the strength of the relationship between the process characteristic and
byproduct. Less than three examples of influence from the participant interviews indicates a weak
influence, 3≤x≥5 is a moderate and >5 is a strong influence.
Accountability
Two individuals explained that the responsiveness of the BC CRT Review Team
increased their trust in that group. However, they and others noted, that while they trusted
300
the BC CRT Review Team, the process did not increase the level of trust in the BC
Ministry of Energy and Mines or the Provincial Government as a whole.
Inclusivity
For the most part, participants noted that the extensive efforts to include various
parties in the BC Treaty review process increased a number of different positive
relational byproducts. The two most salient connections were between the inclusivity of
the process and an increase in the quality of relationships and an understanding of other
views and positions. One citizen participant in the BC CRT Review said:
I felt like every time I came away from one of those sessions, I felt, okay
I've got another perspective from [another citizen] who was a forester. I
now understand a lot better why he is taking the position he is. That is
very, very important to me in this whole process. Not getting a single
common view but understanding the wide range of the views. - BC citizen
Another byproduct influenced by the inclusivity of the process was the creation of
a new program, the Columbia Basin Regional Advisory Committee (CBRAC). The
Sounding Board acted as a pilot program for engaging a stakeholder body in decision
making and its success is credited as justification for the CBRAC. After the delivery of
the BC Provincial Decision, the Province put out a call for applications for BC basin
residents to join CBRAC, which discusses a variety of Treaty and domestic issues in the
BC portion of the basin. Related to this, review participants noted that as a result of this
process, the Province increased communication with the BC portion of the basin through
CBRAC and through other efforts between BC Hydro and basin residents.
Information
Five participants of the BC CRT Review noted that they understood the ecology
of the river basin better as a result of the technical studies and information produced and
301
used in the review process. Others noted an increase in the amount of shared information
and knowledge in the basin as a result of the Treaty review process. A Sounding Board
member shared the following anecdote:
We had several situations where someone said, "we really want to see"
and someone else said, "we did that three years ago" and the Review Team
said we will try and put that together. - Sounding Board member
Context
A couple of individuals reported that the context of the process had some
influence of on different byproducts, such as community capacity for decision making
and institutional capacity. However, only single individuals made those observations and
there were no clear trends in how the context influenced the process byproducts. For
example, a representative of a First Nation noted how different aspects of the context
helped contribute to a new pilot program for First Nation consultation.
Other influences
I did not limit my analysis to the four characteristics of the Water GPA. To make
sure I did not exclude other factors that may have influenced the process byproducts I
inductively coded the interview transcripts as well. However, I did not find clear
evidence of a relationship between the byproducts and other influences in my inductive
coding of the text.
7.3.2 US CRT 2014/2024 Review Results
Review participants most frequently shared that aspects of the process related to
the production and sharing of information as well as the inclusion of various parties in the
US CRT 2014/2024 Review had the greatest influence on the process byproducts (Table
102). Context had some effect, but to a lesser degree. Accountability also influenced
302
byproducts, but interviewees noted that it more often prevented a byproduct from
occurring than contributed to it. In addition to these aspects of the process, other factors
also impacted the formation of byproducts.
Table 102. Statements on what influenced byproducts in the US CRT 2014/2024 Review
Number of Coded References
Contributed to
Impeded
Would have
No influence
byproduct
byproduct
helped
Accountability
5
12
2
6
Context
4
3
1
1
Inclusivity
24
5
5
7
Information
26
1
2
2
Other
11
3
2
3
Table 102 displays the number of references noting that the Water GPA process characteristics
and an ‘other’ category contributed to, impeded, would have helped, or had no influence on
byproducts of the US CRT 2014/2024 Review.
I also examined what characteristics of the process influenced different
byproducts to see if there were any trends in certain characteristics influencing specific
types of byproducts. For the US CRT 2014/2024 Review, I found that while a few trends
emerged, my data were such that where only one or two participants who shared
observations of how a characteristic of the process impacted a byproduct (Table 103). For
example, only one participant talked about how information produced during the review
increased mutual or shared understanding in the region. This means I only offer findings
on a limited number of relationships between a few specific byproducts and the process.
For example, over half of the participants cited the information produced and shared
during the US CRT 2014/2024 Review as something that increased different knowledgebased byproducts such as technical models, understanding of the ecological/biophysical
system, as well as their personal or organization’s education and awareness of Treaty
related issues (Table 103). In the following subsections, I dive deeper into my analysis
and describe what about the process or other factors contributed to, impeded, did not
303
influence, or would have helped result in specific US CRT 2014/2024 byproducts. I
organize the results using the Water GPA process categories and then address what other
factors emerged as important through my inductive coding.
Tangible
Table 103. What influenced US CRT 2014/2024 Review byproducts
Byproduct
Accountability Context Inclusivity
Programs or initiatives
Weak
Relational
Coalitions
Communication
Level of conflict
Mutual-shared
understanding
Quality of relationships
Info
Other
Weak
Moderate
Weak
Moderate
Moderate
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Strong
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Trust in others involved
Weak
Weak
Weak
Trust in the lead agency
Moderate
Weak
Moderate
Weak
Understanding of others’
views & positions
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Knowledge-Based
Public educationawareness
Shared knowledge &
information
Technical models
Understanding of
ecological-biophysical
system
Understanding of the
social system
Capacity
Co-produced science
Your organization’s
education-awareness
Your own educationawareness
Ability to resolve future
disputes
Community capacity for
decision making
Institutional capacity
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Moderate
Moderate
Strong
Weak
Moderate
Weak
Moderate
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Other
Weak
Weak
Weak
Weak
Table 103 displays the strength of the relationship between the process characteristic and
byproduct. Less than three examples of influence from the participant interviews indicates a weak
influence, 3≤x≥5 is a moderate and >5 is a strong influence.
304
Accountability
Three participants in the US Treaty review cited the structure of the US CRT
2014/2024 Review as decreasing trust in the US Entity. More specifically they mentioned
the lack of transparency due to the exclusion of stakeholders from the SRT, the lack of
sharing of decision authority, and the tension between the US Entity as a neutral lead
agency versus an agency representing its constituencies as aspects of accountability that
decreased trust.
Looking forward to the next phase of the Treaty review or future processes in the
basin, participants had a couple of suggestions for how to improve accountability and the
production of desirable byproducts. One recommendation was to explore ways to address
the issue of whether the US Entity is acting as a process lead or advocate. Another
suggestion was made to find a way to allow for more equitable funding of various aspects
of the process. Instead of the US Entity holding the purse strings, find a way to allow
various parties to access the funding available for the process.
Information
Participants in the US Treaty review cited a number of examples of how the
information produced and shared during the Treaty review process improved various
byproducts related to knowledge. Eight sovereigns shared that the information produced
in the review improved their understanding of the ecology of the river basin. Three
sovereigns commented on how the review advanced the US technical models and
modeling capabilities. A couple of individuals noted that conducting technical studies
together was a trust building exercise with the lead agency (the US Entity).
305
Inclusivity
Six members of the SRT, including representatives from federal agencies, state
governments, and tribes felt that working together during the US CRT 2014/2024 Review
improved the quality of relationships in the basin. They discussed how working together
for such a long period of time allowed them and others to understand each other’s
perspectives, build trust, and develop stronger relationships. One SRT member from a
federal agency said:
I think having a process this long enough to really develop relationships
and that you meet frequently enough within that time frame you develop
relationships. It gives people the space to have conversations, air points of
disagreement, reach more and become more understanding about why
there's that disagreement. - Federal agency SRT member
A stakeholder also specifically shared how not being part of the SRT meant there were
fewer opportunities to develop relationships and understanding. He said,
Not sitting in the same room, month after month, for a couple years, meant
that we didn't have the informal opportunity to talk, whether inside the
process or outside the process. So the informal opportunity to build
bridges between different representative groups was materially impaired
by the process they [the US Entity] chose. - Hydropower interest
The inclusivity or lack of inclusivity also played a role in the knowledge-related
byproducts. A couple of sovereigns and a stakeholder noted that the Treaty review
provided a venue to access information and learn. A state representative on the SRT said:
It was very rich in that kind of quality of work and having the time of
some years to develop what we wanted to analyze and then analyze it and
think about what it meant, was an educational process for everyone. I
think these processes are more successful when people not just learn but
learn together, so we all know some of the same things of what scenarios
seemed to work pretty well, which ones didn't, what were the
implications of trying certain types of agreements with Canada. I think
those were all particularly good. - State SRT member
306
Context
One specific byproduct the basin context influenced directly was the Tribal
Coalition or Caucus, where 15 tribes in the US portion of the basin developed a Common
Views document and worked as a united force to advocate for the inclusion of ecosystembased function and other tribal interests in the US Regional Recommendation and the
CRT. Tribal and non-tribal sovereigns frequently commented on how historic and
positive the Tribal caucus is. The coalition formed slightly before Phase 2 of the US CRT
2014/2024. Two aspects of the context brought the tribes together. One is that all 15
tribes have management authorities and responsibilities affected by the implementation of
the Columbia River Treaty. The CRT is a very important issue for all the tribes and the
US CRT 2014/2024 provided a venue to further their interests. Second, the
representatives I spoke with from the tribes talked about how in the past the US has used
a “divide and conquer” approach to engage tribes in an effort to improve the US
negotiation position, which comes at a cost to the tribes. The coalition formed and
remained strong because when they worked together, the tribes had greater influence over
the Treaty review process and US Regional Recommendation. Creating shared goals
through the Common Views document also helped keep the group together. So in short
the importance of the Treaty and its upcoming changes, common goals, along with a
desire to improve their bargaining power helped instigate the creation of the coalition.
Three individuals commented on the same aspect of the Treaty review context
negatively impacting the byproduct “trust in others involved.” They felt that previous
negative experiences and existing distrust of different groups, both sovereigns and
307
stakeholders, as a result of interactions in previous processes served as a barrier for
building trust through the US CRT 2014/2024 process. One SRT member said:
It drove the facilitators crazy, because they are used to a situation where
you bring people in, you define the problem, you work a little bit on
building trust, you build a level of trust, and then you move forward. That
never happened. That level of animosity was always there. We never got
to the point where we could trust each other, because we knew the history
and we know what the future's going to hold. So they were antagonists
before the process and they're still going to be antagonists afterwards.
Other Influences
To make sure I did not ignore other factors that may have influenced the process
byproducts I did not limit my analysis to the four characteristics of the Water GPA. I
inductively coded the interview transcripts as well. I found a few emergent themes of
other factors impacting byproducts. Personality was cited a few times as a barrier to
relational byproducts like trust. The decision, in this case the US Regional
Recommendation, itself had the potential to impact byproducts. In this case, two
individuals noted different degrees of influence. One noted that the lack of specificity in
the Regional Recommendation decreased their trust in the US Entity. The other said that
disagreeing with aspects of the Recommendation and process had no influence on its
view of the US Entity. These opposing observations suggest something else at play.
A few individuals reported various other factors in the basin that contributed to
better understanding of other’s positions and an awareness of the Treaty and its related
issues. These include individual’s efforts to share what they learned about the Treaty with
their organization and informal dialogue across the border through the Universities
Consortium on Columbia River Governance and other conferences.
308
7.4 Discussion
My analysis offers a preliminary examination of what aspects of a process may
influence the decision and byproducts of that process and thereby offers a preliminary
answer to my research question “What characteristics of a water governance process may
contribute to water governance outcomes?” (Research Question 4). Below I synthesize
the results from the two case studies to compare how characteristics of the two processes
influenced their respective decisions and byproducts. I also examine the interactions
between process characteristics and the role they played in the process outcomes.
7.4.1 Decisions
From the results of the two case study analyses, it appears that the characteristics
of a process that influence a decision varies and is extremely complex. In both case
studies accountability and inclusivity had the greatest impact on the US Regional
Recommendation and BC Provincial Decision in terms of the content and support for the
documents. When various parties actively engaged in the process and the lead agency
responded to those participants, the decision included their voice and views in some way.
The opposite was also true; if a party was excluded or the lead agency was less receptive
then the views of that party was not as represented in the decision. For example a
hydropower interest noted the following about the Regional Recommendation:
It was very SRT-oriented in its early drafts, because that's who the US
Entity was talking to, and when they started having to talk to more people,
they recognized that that was not going to be an ultimately successful path.
- Hydropower interest
7.4.2 Byproducts
Without more data to verify some of the participant observations, I can draw only
a few conclusions from the case studies on the role of characteristics of the process in the
309
development of byproducts. First, generally, the production and sharing of information
with different parties increased various knowledge-based byproducts. More specifically it
can increase participants understanding of the issue and the social-ecological system and
may improve technical models. A second common theme among the two case studies is
that inclusive participation processes improve the quality of relationships among the
participants as well as build trust and understanding of each other’s positions.
7.4.3 Process and Outcomes: A Complex Relationship
It is difficult to draw clear lines between process characteristics and outcomes in
part because the links are not necessarily direct and do not operate in a vacuum. The two
case studies also highlight how the relationship between process and outcome is complex.
In both case studies, it appears that the interplay between the process characteristics
(where two or more characteristics converge) has greater influence over the decision than
one specific characteristic (e.g., inclusivity). For example, the interplay between
accountability and inclusivity had an intriguing effect on the US CRT 2014/2024 Review
and the US Regional Recommendation. In some ways the Department of State held the
US Entity accountable in the development of the Regional Recommendation and the
Department of State requested a high-level consensus document. This criterion for the
decision (an aspect of accountability) interacted with other aspects of the process to
influence the Regional Recommendation and its support.
First, this requirement for consensus pushed the US Entity to expand its
stakeholder engagement efforts and improve how it included non-sovereign interests so
they would support the Regional Recommendation. The stakeholders (as well as the
sovereigns) would only support the document if their views were reflected to some
310
degree in the text. The Sovereign Participation Process structure that only included
sovereigns on the SRT and STT limited how inclusive the process was and did not set the
region up for consensus. To address this challenge, the US Entity conducted additional
stakeholder meetings and two public comment periods to increase engagement of
stakeholders. In a sense, the need for consensus compensated for the lack of inclusivity
early in the US CRT 2014/2024 Review.
Second the request that the region produce a high-level document that did not
overly restrict the Department of State’s bargaining position if the US entered into
negotiations with Canada altered the role information played in the Regional
Recommendation. Aiming to produce a high-level document reduced the immediate need
for technical information as there was not space to include it. Likewise, the request to
stop sharing technical study results to protect US bargaining power meant results were
not available for the SRT and others to digest and consider in the formulation of the US
Regional Recommendation. The need for consensus also reduced the role of technical
information in the Regional Recommendation as consensus was much easier to achieve in
more general language than in detailed recommendations.
In the BC CRT Review we see how context, accountability, and inclusivity
interact. Various parties in the basin were not going to allow the provincial government
to exclude their views in the Treaty review as the federal government did in the original
negotiations of the Treaty. An organization within the basin, the Columbia Basin Trust
(CBT) worked to educate and prepare citizens for the Treaty review process and provided
recommendations along with the LGC to the BC Ministry of Energy and Mines on how
to engage the basin. For the most part, the lead ministry was responsive to the context and
311
to the interested and affected parties. It was able to recognize the importance of including
basin residents and capitalize on leverage points within the basin context to develop a
successful engagement strategy that increased trust and the quality of relationships in the
basin and Province.
7.4.4 Caveats and Limitations
My research includes a number of different caveats and limitations. One caveat to
my results and conclusions is the fact that they are based on only two case studies in the
same basin. Both of the case studies are in developed nations and so my findings may or
may not translate to decision making processes in developing nations or to other basins.
One methodological limitation of my research is the fact that I was the sole coder
of the data. I attempted to mitigate this issue by developing a thorough codebook and also
by reviewing all of my coding. One method of improving this work in the future is to
have multiple people code the data and check the inter-coder reliability to better ensure
consistent coding. I did not pursue this course of action because I lacked the time and
resources.
A second limitation of my study is that my data consist of participant perceptions
of what happened during the two review processes and what they think resulted from
each process. Therefore I relied on the memories of individuals, which are not infallible.
In some cases, participants in my two studies shared inconsistent or competing narratives
of the same situation. It is possible that only one of, both, or neither narrative accurately
represented what happened. I attempted to address that problem in two ways. First, I tried
to only report findings based on a minimum of three sources of information in order to
verify and triangulate the data. The three sources could be three different individuals, two
312
individuals and a document from a source other than those two individuals’ affiliations,
three documents, etc. Second, when I only used observations from one or two of the
study participants to draw my conclusions, I was transparent about and I clearly identify
what information I used. This allows the reader to assess the strength of a finding and
what biases it may have.
7.4.5 Future Research
Future research on decision making processes can build on or verify my research
findings in a number of ways. Additional case studies will help disprove or verify my
preliminary findings on what characteristics of a decision making process influence its
outcomes. These case studies could take one of two approaches. Following my approach,
the case studies could collect data after a decision is made by asking participants to
reflect on their experiences and share their views. Alternatively, a researcher could gather
baseline data prior to or in the early stages of a decision making process and then collect
additional data after the decision has been made. This would allow the researcher to
better document the existing positions and initial status of byproducts like trust and an
understanding of the ecological system and then see how they evolved during the
decision making process.
Instead of qualitative case studies future research on this topic, future researchers
can adopt a quantitative approach in which they utilize my survey (or some variation of
it) to explore correlations between the characteristics of a process and its outcomes. With
a larger data set, researchers can use statistical analyses to see if there is a correlation
between accountability, information, and inclusivity scores and decision scores. A
downside to this approach is that the current survey model does not evaluate context or
313
byproducts in a quantitative way that is amenable to statistical analysis. In the future,
myself and others might consider exploring ways to measure context and byproducts in a
quantitative way to allow for quantitative analysis of those factors.
In addition to further studies to vet and verify my results, I recommend research
that pays attention to the interactions of the various process categories in order to identify
trends of how characteristics of the process interact to either promote or prevent good
governance. At starting point for this research would be investigating the interdependencies displayed in Figure 6.
Contributes to audience(s) understanding of issue
Influences degree of information sharing
Information/
Knowledge
Promotes transparency
through sharing &
co-production
Impacts if data
are viewed as
accurate &
appropriate
Influences what
info is available
or needed
Explains & clarifies
Inclusivity
Impacts quality of
involvement &
degree of influence
Accountability
Influences
future
expectations
Shapes
decision
space
Context
Influences
whether decision
is accepted
Informs who
to include
Impacts future relationships
Figure 6. Example inter-dependencies between framework categories
7.5 Chapter conclusion
In this chapter, I used the Water GPA to examine the relationship between
characteristics of two decision making process and their outcomes. Which characteristics
were most important in the development of the US Regional Recommendation, BC
Provincial Decision, and the various byproducts of the two processes? All four
314
characteristics outlined in the Water Governance Process Assessment (Water GPA),
played some role in the content and/or support of the two decision documents. Generally
when the characteristic of the process was done well, it improved the legitimacy and
acceptance of the decision. At the same time performing poorly in one area did not
necessarily torpedo the process. Through measures of accountability the US process was
able to address and overcome deficits in inclusivity. Likewise, the majority of those
interviewed accepted the BC Provincial Decision as legitimate despite the fact that part of
it contradicted their view because of the extensive consultation process and information
sharing. Therefore, my observations in these two case studies suggest that the
characteristics outlined by the Water GPA are those that influence process outcomes in
the Columbia River Basin. However, further work is needed to clearly identify what
characteristics of a process are most influential in different situations.
315
8 Discussion and Conclusion
In this chapter, I summarize my findings from the previous few chapters, discuss
what those findings contribute to theory, explain the challenges and limitations of the
case study method along with my attempts to address those issues, and outline potential
directions for future research.
8.1 Summary and Discussion of Findings
In the preceding chapters, I addressed each of my four research questions
objectives (Table 104). Now I will summarize what I discovered as I attempted to answer
each question.
Table 104. Summary of research questions, objectives, and findings
Research Questions
Research Objectives
Location in Dissertation
Research Question 1 - What
are characteristics of a “good”
water governance process?
Objective 1 - Develop an
operationalized framework for
systematically evaluating water
governance processes based on
existing frameworks for water
governance, public participation,
and conflict management.
Chapter 2
Research Question 2 - How
can those characteristics be
used to evaluate water
governance processes?
Objective 2 - Evaluate both the
Canadian and American reviews of
the CRT the using the framework
developed (the Water Governance
Process Assessment or Water
GPA).
Chapter 3 (methodology)
Chapter 4 (background)
Chapter 5 (Canadian
case study application)
Chapter 6 (US case study
application)
Research Question 3 - What
are lessons learned for good
water governance from the
Canadian and American
reviews of the CRT?
Objective 3 - Identify barriers and
building blocks to good water
governance from the two programs
and glean lessons for future CRTrelated efforts and water
governance processes.
Chapter 5 (case study
application)
Chapter 6 (case study
application)
Research Question 4 - What
characteristics of a water
governance process may
contribute to water
governance outcomes?
Objective 4 - Use the Water GPA
and CRT case studies to examine
what characteristics of those
processes contributed to their
respective process outcomes.
Chapter 7
Table 104 provides a summary of and map to my research questions and their corresponding
objectives.
316
8.1.1 Research Question 1
My first research question is ‘what are characteristics of a “good” water
governance process?’ I addressed this question in Chapter 2, where I developed an
operationalized framework for evaluating water governance processes based on existing
frameworks for water governance, public participation, and conflict management. To
develop the framework I followed a multi-step approach. I first reviewed the scholarly
and grey literature in the areas of water governance, natural resource management, and
collaborative processes to identify commonly agreed upon characteristics for good water
governance processes. My review of the literature yielded four primary characteristics of
good water governance decision making processes: 1) accountability, 2) information, 3)
inclusivity, 4) context (Table 8).
After identifying the most critical aspects of a good water governance decision
making process, I operationalized the new synthesis framework by utilizing the same
literature to determine what to use as an indicator for each characteristic and how best to
assess it. Three of the process characteristics (i.e., accountability, information,
inclusivity) can be evaluated by rating how well a process addressed or incorporated
different subcomponents of those characteristics. However, I did not find a standardized
way to assess how context was considered in the development and implementation of a
process. Therefore, I proposed process leads/conveners complete an inventory of the
basin context in order to identify what aspects may be a barrier to or leverage point for
improving water governance in the three other process areas. This can be done before the
process in order in order to identify and overcome the barriers and capitalize on the
317
leverage points. Alternatively, it can be done mid-way or after a process to evaluate if the
process lead attempted to address the context and/or if they were successful in doing so.
Table 8. Summary of Water Governance Process Assessment categtories
Category and Definition
Importance
Example Subcomponents
 Culture, worldviews & values
Context - The various conditions of the basin Highlights
 Incentives
and socio-ecological system under which the barriers to
 Resource system & units
decision is being made. Three subcategories overcome and
of the context are: social system, ecological
opportunities to  Relationships
 Social, economic, & political
system, and the problem.
capitalize on.
setting
Inclusivity - The degree and quality of
inclusion of interested and effected parties at Influences the
 Participation
various stages of the process, which may
content and
 Power & agency
take many forms (e.g., direct participation or
acceptance of
 Representation
representation) to result in meaningful
the decision.
engagement.
Information - The data, information and
knowledge used to make the decision,
including all stages of collection, modeling,
experiments, and analysis.
Often serves as
the foundation
or justification
for a decision.




Comprehensiveness
Integrative
Peer review
Socially robust
Accountability - The organization and
 Transparency
atmosphere of the process designed to
Influences
 Rule of law
legitimacy/
produce a legitimate decision based on 1)
 Leadership
acceptance of
what is the scope of the decision making
 Equity
the decision.
process, 2) who will make the decision, and
 Responsiveness
3) how the decision will be made.
Table 8 is my summary of the Water GPA process categories, their importance in a decision
making process and example components of those categories from my source frameworks.
I named my synthesis framework the Water Governance Process Assessment
(Water GPA). I consider the Water GPA to be a framework in its infancy and in need of
example applications to examine its usefulness. Therefore, I next applied my framework
to explore how to evaluate water governance processes with the four Water GPA
characteristics.
8.1.2 Research Question 2
With my framework in hand, I set out to answer my second research question
‘how can those characteristics [of good water governance processes identified in the
Water GPA] be used to evaluate water governance processes?’ In Chapter 3, I laid
318
out my methodology for applying the Water GPA in two case studies. I explained that I
would demonstrate use of the framework by evaluating both the Canadian and American
reviews of the Columbia River Treaty called the BC CRT Review and US CRT
2014/2024 Review, respectively. Then in Chapter 4, I provided background information
for both case studies including information about the Columbia River Basin, Columbia
River Treaty, and water governance in each country.
To gather the data to evaluate the US CRT 2014/2024 Review and BC CRT
Review, I conducted 38 semi-structured interviews with individuals who participated in
the two reviews. I interviewed a cross-section of review participants from a variety of
affiliations including the federal governments, state/provincial governments, Tribes and
First Nations, members of the public, and stakeholder interests. Interviews ranged from
15 minutes to an hour and a half. I transcribed, deductively coded, and analyzed the
interviews with the qualitative analysis software QSR NVivo and the Water GPA
framework. Thirty-four interviewees and 12 additional review participants filled out a
survey to assist in collecting information about the processes, decisions, and byproducts
for application of the framework. I transcribed and analyzed the surveys using basic
statistics.
I presented the full results of the two case study applications of the framework in
Chapter 5 (BC CRT Review) and Chapter 6 (US CRT 2014/2024 Review). Table 60 and
Table 61 (reproduced below) summarize the Water GPA results for the BC CRT Review
case study. Table 92 and Table 93 (also reproduced below) summarize the Water GPA
results for the US CRT 2014/2024 Review case study. The evaluation of each process
revealed evidence of good process as well as areas in need of improvement.
319
Accountability
 Transparency with public
engagement
 Approach to scoping process
 Responsiveness of BC CRT
Review Team
 Clarity of path forward
 Support for choice of
process lead
 First Nation consultation
 Lack of clear decision
criteria
 Confusion about how
public input would be
included in decision
 First Nation input into
the decision
Inclusivity
 Representation of public, local
officials, and various
stakeholders in process
 Participant involvement in
design of engagement process
 Technical committees make-up
 Multiple face-to-face meetings
 Ability of groups to
influence policy issues and
technical studies
 Resources availability
 Representation of First
Nations
 Degree of involvement
of select ministries on
technical committees
Information
 Information collected from and
shared with affected
communities
 Extent of information sharing in
public consultation and
technical committees
 Extent of technical studies
 Use of Water Use
Planning information
 Whether information
shared was audience
appropriate
 Information sharing
with First Nations
Other
Table 60. Summary of BC CRT Review Water GPA accountability, information, and
inclusivity results
What needed
What worked well
What had mixed results
improvement
 Personal leadership of different
individuals
Table 60 summarizes what worked well (i.e., was a building block of good water governance) and
what did not (i.e., was a barrier to good water governance) in the BC CRT Review.
Table 61. Water GPA examination of BC CRT Review context
Potential Barrier
Potential Leverage Point
Inclusivity
 Declaration that Sinixt are extinct
 Past ‘drive-by’ First Nation consultation
experiences
 Distrust of government due to original Treaty
negotiations
 CBT CRT information
sessions
 LGC
 BC CRT Review Team
training
Information
 Limited time to complete studies
 Water Use Plans
 Jurisdiction disconnect (specifically related
 Executive Director’s
First Nation consultation and salmon)
history with basin
Accountability
 Declaration that Sinixt are extinct (barrier to
 Minister of Energy and
procedural justice)
Mines is from basin
Table 61 lists different aspects of the US CRT 2014/2024 context and how they might pose a
challenge or barrier to or leverage point for good water governance in each of the three other
process categories (inclusivity, information, and accountability).
320
Information
Inclusivity
Accountability
Table 92. Summary of US CRT 2014/2024 Review Water GPA accountability, information,
and inclusivity results
What worked well
What had mixed results
What needed improvement
 How well
 Defining decision criteria
representatives of
 Transparency with stakeholders
sovereigns and
 Transparency within
 Clearly define sharing of
interest groups
the SPP
decision authority
represented their
 DOS as a higher
 Choice of decision process lead
constituencies
source of
 Interpretation of laws/regulations
 Guidance from DOS
accountability
such as Executive Order 13175
(it was helpful but
and what makes a sovereign
needed to be offered

Outline of next steps
earlier)
 Early involvement of
 Sovereign-stakeholder  Inclusion of CTGR
sovereigns
dichotomy
 Better engagement of
 Ability to influence
 Resources to
stakeholders (both in terms of
policy and technical
participate
quality and timing)
issues
 Utilizing existing
 Quality and scope of
information
technical work
 Information sharing with
 Information sharing
sovereigns and stakeholders
 Sharing audience
with sovereigns and
(post-summer 2013)
appropriate
select stakeholders
information
(pre-summer 2013)
Other
 Facilitation of SRT
 Better understanding of
Canadian views
 Management of strong
personalities
Table 92 summarizes what worked well (i.e., was a building block of good water governance) and
what did not (i.e., was a barrier to good water governance) in the US CRT 2014/2024 Review.
321
Table 93. Water GPA examination of context in US CRT 2014/2024 Review
Potential Barrier
Potential Leverage Point
 Large geographic extent to cover
 Large number of relevant stakeholders
 Political relationship among tribes
 Existing coalitions
Inclusivity
 Existing professional relationships
 Existing professional
relationships
 Different goals among interested and
affected parties
 FACA rules
 Information collected and
 Concerns about data validity
Information
previously conducted studies
 Disputes over what models to use
 Existing models
 Limited authority of lead organization
 Collective authority of parties
and its ability to share that authority
involved
Accountability
 Lack of trust in lead organization
 US Department of State’s
 Differences in opinion about
oversight role
problem/task and/or goal definition
Table 93 lists different aspects of the US CRT 2014/2024 context and how they might pose a
challenge to or leverage point for good water governance in each of the three other process
categories (inclusivity, information, and accountability).
I developed the Water Governance Process Assessment (Water GPA) for two
reasons: 1) to provide water managers with a practical tool for evaluating and improving
their water governance decision making processes and 2) investigate the link between
process and outcomes. My second research question provides me with the opportunity to
reflect on whether I was successful in meeting that first goal (I discuss the second goal in
the subsection “Research Question 4”). In my Introduction, I posit that an evaluation
framework must be meaningful, comprehensive, streamlined, and operationalized for use
by water managers. In some ways the Water GPA meets those criteria, but at the same
time it has distinct limitations and areas in need of improvement (Table 105). I discuss
what I recommend to address deficiencies in the chapter subsection “Future Research.”
322
Table 105. Assessment of Water GPA as feasible evaluation framework
Criteria
My Observations
Meaningful characteristics evaluated
should have implications for
the outcomes of the
process
 My analysis of the link between the two Treaty review processes
and their outcomes indicate that the four Water GPA process
characteristics have some influence on outcomes
 However the extent of that influence is not clear or consistent;
there is also the added complexity that the intersect of two
characteristics may have a stronger influence
Comprehensive - cover the
full scope of good
governance characteristics
 The Water GPA includes four of the five major themes I identified
in my review of frameworks for good water governance decision
making processes
 Effectiveness/efficiency is not included in the framework
Operationalized - explicit
on what and how to
measure metric(s) for each
characteristic
 Evaluation of three of the process categories, the decision, and
byproducts are operationalized
 I present a standardized way to assess context but is it a more
nebulous approach
 My approach for measurement involves relying on participant
perceptions to determine if desired process characteristics are
present (as opposed to using more objective measures)
Streamlined - contained
within one framework
 All process categories are included in one framework
 However, application of the Water GPA requires two different
approaches to analysis because assessment of context could
not be operationalized in the same way as the other categories
Table 105 shares my observations about the feasibility of process evaluation using the Water
GPA. These observations are based on my experience applying the framework to two case
studies, the BC CRT Review and the US CRT 2014/2024 Review.
8.1.3 Research Question 3
I also addressed my third research question, ‘what are lessons learned for good
water governance from the Canadian and American reviews of the CRT?’ in
Chapters 4 and 5. More specifically, I worked to identify barriers to and building blocks
for good water governance via the case study analysis of the two programs and translated
them into lessons for future CRT-related efforts and similar water governance processes.
Lessons learned and recommendations from the BC CRT Review are: 1) allow
participants to help structure engagement, 2) take Tsilhqot'in decision to heart and work
with First Nations to determine what it means for future processes, 3) invest in or
capitalize on capacity building efforts, 4) develop criteria for what would be a successful
323
decision, 5) clearly specify how process participant input will be used, 6) choose the right
leader and team, understand that trust may not necessarily scale up, 7) invest wisely
because resources can make a difference, and 8) don’t just close the loop, share what you
know about the future (Table 62). Lessons learned from the US CRT 2014/2024 Review
include: 1) identify a neutral convener to lead the process, 2) develop a way for
sovereigns and stakeholders to both participate in the process and engage each other,
while respecting sovereignty, 3) sometimes it may be worth the administrative effort to
develop a more inclusive process, 4) consider a tiered approach for engagement in larger
scale processes, 5) clearly specify how decision authority will be shared, 5) develop an
understanding of either a) what you want the end product to look like or b) criteria for a
successful decision and stick with them as much as possible, 7) find a way to re-evaluate
and incorporate new decision criteria if new information comes available, and 8) identify
ways to equitably allocate resources (Table 94). While I identified lessons learned
separately for each case study, there is some thematic overlap (Table 106). Any future
transboundary governance process involving both nations might consider both sets of
lessons and recommendations as it develops its process.
324
Table 106. Summary of lessons learned from both case studies
Theme
BC CRT Review Lessons
Leadership
 Choose the right leader
Inclusivity and
sovereignty
issues
 Allow participants to help
structure engagement
 Take Tsilhqot'in decision to
heart and work with First
Nations to determine what it
means for future processes
US CRT 2014/2024 Review Lessons
 Identify a neutral convener to lead the
process
 Develop a way for sovereigns and
stakeholders to both participate in the
process and engage each other, while
respecting sovereignty
 Consider a tiered approach for
engagement in larger scale processes
Decision
criteria
 Develop criteria for what would
be a successful decision
 Develop an understanding of either 1)
what you want the end product to look like
or 2) criteria for a successful decision and
stick with them as much as possible
 Find a way to re-evaluate and incorporate
new decision criteria, if new information
comes available
Decision
authority
 Clearly specify how process
participant input will be used
 Clearly specify how decision authority will
be shared (ideally a collaborative process)
Resources
 Invest in or capitalize on
capacity building efforts
 Resources make a difference,
so invest wisely
 Sometimes it may be worth the
administrative effort to develop a more
inclusive process
 Identify ways to equitably allocate
resources
 Understand that trust may not
necessarily scale up
Miscellaneous  Don’t just close the loop, share  None
what you know about the
future
Table 106 lists out the lessons learned from the two case studies. It also categorizes the lessons
along several themes.
8.1.4 Research Question 4
In Chapter 7, sought to answer my fourth research question, ‘what
characteristics of a water governance process contribute to water governance
outcomes?’ To do this, I used the Water GPA and my CRT case studies to examine what
characteristics of those processes contributed to their respective process outcomes
(Objective 4). I hypothesized that the four categories of the Water GPA (accountability,
information, inclusivity, and context) influenced both the decisions and the byproducts of
the US CRT 2014/2024 Review and the BC CRT Review. To test this hypothesis, I asked
325
my interview participants if the accountability, information, inclusivity, context, and/or
other aspects part of and outside of the US CRT 2014/2024 Review and the BC CRT
Review processes shaped or influenced the decision (in my case studies that would be
either the US Regional Recommendation or BC Provincial Decision). I also asked the
review participants to identify the three byproducts from the process that were most
important to them and then up to three byproducts they wished had resulted from the
process (or wished increased more than they did). I then asked them to explain what
about the process contributed to, worked against, or would have helped promote positive
changes in the byproducts.
Using QSR NVivo software I manually coded the interview transcripts
deductively using the Water GPA; that is I identified all statements where a participant
talks about some aspect of the process influencing or not influencing the decision or
byproducts. I coded these statements for which aspect of the process the participant was
referring to (i.e., accountability, inclusivity, context, and information as well as their
secondary codes). Statements that did not fit under any of these four primary codes were
coded as “Other” which I inductively coded to identify what else may explain what
influenced the two review decisions and their byproducts. I then went through all those
coded statements a second time to identify the kind of influence (contributing or
detracting) or lack of influence the participant discussed.
All four characteristics outlined in the Water Governance Process Assessment
(Water GPA), played some role in the development of the content and/or support of the
two decision documents. Generally, when the characteristic of the process was done well,
it improved the legitimacy and acceptance of the decision. At the same time performing
326
poorly in one area did not necessarily torpedo the process or decision. For example,
through measures of accountability the US process was able to address and overcome
deficits in inclusivity. Likewise, the majority of those interviewed accepted the BC
Provincial Decision as legitimate despite the fact that part of it contradicted their view
because of the extensive consultation process and information sharing.
In both case studies, it appears that the interplay between the process
characteristics (that is where two or more characteristics converge) had a greater
influence over the decision. For example, the interplay between accountability and
inclusivity had an intriguing effect on the US CRT 2014/2024 Review and the US
Regional Recommendation. . The criterion for a high-level consensus document (an
aspect of accountability) triggered a change in inclusivity and in turn influenced the
Regional Recommendation and its support. In the BC CRT Review a combination of
context, accountability, and inclusivity impacted the BC Provincial Decision. Various
parties in the basin were not going to allow the provincial government to exclude their
views in the Treaty review. An organization within the basin, the Columbia Basin Trust
(CBT) worked to educate and prepare citizens for the Treaty review process and provided
recommendations along with the LGC to the BC Ministry of Energy and Mines on how
to engage the basin. For the most part, the lead ministry was responsive to the context and
to the interested and affected parties. It was able to recognize the importance of including
basin residents and capitalize on leverage points within the basin context to develop a
successful engagement strategy that increased trust and the quality of relationships in the
basin and Province.
327
Therefore, my observations in these two case studies suggest that the
characteristics outlined by the Water GPA are those that influence process outcomes in
the Columbia River Basin. However, further work is needed to clearly identify what
characteristics of a process are most influential in different situations and further explore
the interplay between the characteristics. The Water GPA is one useful tool for further
investigating that link between process and outcome.
8.2 Implications for Adaptive Governance
Some of my research questions are practical in nature and seek to provide
observations and advice to those managing water in the Columbia River Basin. However,
two of my research questions (Research Questions 1 and 4) include implications for
theory. In Section 8.1.4 (“Research Question 4) I discussed the implications of my results
for our understanding of the link between process and outcome.
One way my research contributes to the adaptive governance literature is that it
provides a tool and examples of how to evaluate two forms of capacity, a characteristic
needed for resilience and for adaptive governance, in decision making processes. In
adaptive governance there are two forms of capacity, adaptive and participatory (Cosens
et al., 2014). Adaptive capacity includes possessing the resources and authority to adapt
to change and learn (D. Armitage & Plummer, 2010; Cosens et al., 2014; Engle, 2011).
Participatory capacity is the ability of local stakeholders to participate in decision making
(Cosens et al., 2014). In the Water GPA, the ‘accountability’ category incorporates and
assesses adaptive capacity in a decision making process through its subcomponents on
authority. Likewise, the Water GPA process characteristic ‘inclusivity’ is analogous to
and incorporates the concept of participatory capacity into the framework. This is not
328
surprising since I included adaptive governance and adaptive management frameworks in
my development of the synthesis framework.
Cosens et al. (2014) note in the application of adaptive management elements of
governance are often overlooked. Yet to implement adaptive management in a complex,
multi-jurisdictional system adaptive governance must be addressed. To achieve adaptive
governance, process must be addressed. Several of the frameworks included in the
creation of my process evaluation framework come from the adaptive management and
adaptive governance literature (Table 5). Concepts central to resilience are embedded in
the Water GPA and accompanied by principles of good water governance from other
frameworks in that area of study. Therefore, the Water GPA provides a means by which
to consider and use process in the pursuit of adaptive governance.
In chapter 7, I found that accountability, inclusivity, information, and context
contribute to outcomes scholars believe are necessary for adaptive governance. For
example, knowledge and learning is viewed as critical for adaptive governance (Folke et
al., 2005; Huitema et al., 2009; Pahl-Wostl, 2008; Pahl-Wostl, Sendzimir, et al., 2007;
Plummer & Armitage, 2007; Plummer & FitzGibbon, 2004). In both my case studies,
information efforts in the two Treaty reviews contributed to improved knowledge and
understanding of the ecological system. Likewise, scholars believe trust is important for
resilience and contributes to the formation of adaptive governance (Lebel et al., 2006;
Walker et al., 2004). My findings suggest that inclusivity can increase trust, shared
understanding and legitimacy, as seen in the BC CRT Review and with the sovereigns in
the US CRT 2014/2024 Review. Therefore, one can consider using decision making
processes to help a basin improve its resilience or transition into adaptive.
329
Another way my research contributes to theory is providing a tool to examine the
relationship between adaptive and good water governance. Scholars question the viability
of adaptive governance without good governance or call for an investigation of the
relationship between adaptive governance and principles of good governance (Chaffin et
al., 2014; Cosens et al., 2014; Dietz et al., 2003; Fennell, Plummer, & Marschke, 2008;
Folke et al., 2005; Lockwood, 2010; Termeer, Dewulf, & Lieshout, 2010; Uhlendahl et
al., 2011). The framework I developed incorporates concepts of adaptive governance as
well as principles of good water governance. In future evaluations of a decision making
process, one could examine the importance of the subcomponents of the four primary
process categories to see if there are any discernible trends about the relative importance
or relationship between the subcomponents from the adaptive governance literature and
the good governance literature (Figure 13).
Scope &
sharing of
decision
authority
Setting & reevaluating of
decision
criteria
Transparency
Accountability
Rule of law &
legal
obligations
Responsiveness
Fairness and
procedural
justice
Figure 13. Water GPA accountability subcomponents
The Water GPA process category ‘accountability’ includes subcomponents more frequently
discussed in the adaptive governance literature (e.g., authority), others from the ‘good’
governance literature (e.g., transparency), still others found in both fields (e.g., responsiveness).
330
8.3 Challenges and Limitations of Case Study Research
Case study research, like all methods, has its challenges. In this section, I describe
several of these challenges and how I address them in my research. Yin (2014) identifies
four challenges in case study research: construct validity, internal validity,
generalizability (external validity), and reliability. Table 107 provides a summary of how
I address each of these challenges in my research. In each subsection below, I describe
the challenge and provide greater detail on my tactics for improving the quality of my
research. I explain how I structured and organized my research in order to conduct a
rigorous study in the subsections below. Those measures also serve to help limit my
potential research biases.
Table 107. Challenges in case study research and my strategies to address them
Challenge
My Strategies
 Used multiple sources of information (i.e., interviews and surveys
Construct validity
of individuals as well as documents from the two reviews)
Generalizability (External
validity)
 Used resilience and adaptive governance theories in my
research design
 Applied a replication logic in the two case studies
Internal validity
 Employed a pattern matching approach to verify theory with
empirical findings
 Addressed rival explanations in my data analysis
 Employed a case study protocol in my research design
Table 107 lists the four challenges of case study research and my strategy for addressing each
challenge in my research.
Reliability
8.3.1 Construct Validity
Bhattacherjee (2012) defines construct validity as “how well a given measurement
scale is at measuring the theoretical construct that it is expected to measure” (2012, 36).
Yin explains it as “identifying correct operational measures for the concepts being
studied” (2014, 46). To help increase construct validity a researcher can use multiple
331
sources of evidence in order to triangulate findings, establish a chain of evidence in data
collection, and allow participants to review draft findings (Yin, 2014).
In my case studies, I address construct validity by using multiple sources of
evidence. These sources include interviews and surveys of participants in the two CRT
reviews, documentation from the reviews, and some direct observation. My intent for
using multiple sources of evidence is to provide multiple ways to measure the same
construct or phenomenon (Yin, 2014). Then in my analysis I identify converging lines of
inquiry, allowing for triangulation and greater confidence in my findings.
8.3.2 Internal Validity
Internal validity, or causality, means there is actually a causal relationship
between independent and dependent variables and that the relationship or change cannot
be attributed to other variables. Bhattacherjee (2012) notes that internal validity requires
that there is covariation of cause and effect, the cause occurs before the effect, and there
is no plausible alternative explanation. I try to ensure internal validity by using two
analytic tactics. First, I use pattern matching see if my empirical findings support the
relationships between process and outcomes posited by the theories of resilience,
adaptive governance, and good governance. Second, I address rival explanations in my
data analysis. To identify rival explanations, I inductively coded the interview transcripts
using emergent themes that may explain outcomes of the two reviews.
8.3.3 Generalizability
Traditionally, case studies are promoted as a methodology that is better at
exploring complexity as opposed to generality (Ragin, 1987, 2008). Whether or not it is
possible to generalize from case study research is a highly contested topic in academia.
332
Some argue that it is not appropriate to generalize findings from case studies. They define
generalizations as “assertions of enduring value that are context free” (Lincoln & Guba,
2000, p. 27) or that generalization applies to things that are universally applicable
(Kaplan, 1964). These critiques are not limited to case studies but also apply to other
qualitative methods for which statistical significance is not testable (Mayring, 2007).
Others argue that in certain situations one can generalize from case studies.
Gomm et al. (2000) posit that general conclusions from case studies may be drawn via
theoretical inference and empirical generalization. Stake (2000) argues that naturalistic
generalization (i.e., “recognizing the similarities of objects and issues in and out of
context and by sensing the natural covariations of happenings,” p. 22) is an appropriate
approach for case study analysis. This viewpoint emphasizes transferability over
generalization. Along similar lines, Yin (2014) posits that while statistical generalization
(i.e., where results from the sample apply to the larger world as determined by statistical
inference) is not relevant for case studies, analytic generalizations are (i.e., findings are
generalizable to theoretical propositions).
In my case studies, generalizability or external validity becomes an issue as I
explore how generalizable my findings actually are regarding the link between decision
making processes and outcomes. In Chapter 8, I make analytical generalizations about
what my case studies say about adaptive water governance and identify aspects of my
case studies that are consistent with that theory. I also approach generalization from the
naturalistic generalization slant. That is I do not plan to claim universal applicability of
lessons learned--that is not appropriate. Rather I suggest that lessons learned may be
transferable to other similar scenarios. For example, both the US and Canada will
333
continue to make decisions about Columbia River governance. Therefore in my case
study conclusions in Chapters 5 and 6, I offered advice on how they might approach
those future decision making processes. Mayring (2007) identifies this as the weakest
form of generalizability, but it avoids drawing unfounded conclusions.
8.3.4 Reliability
Reliability is “the degree to which the measure of a construct is consistent or
dependable” (Bhattacherjee, 2012, p. 56). That is, reliability is concerned with whether
the methods and tactics used in a study are repeatable and will reproduce the same
results. Reliability is important in research as it seeks to minimize the effect of biases in
research and avoid errors. In case study research, a case study protocol can improve
reliability in the data collection phase. A case study protocol includes: 1) an overview of
the case study (with research goals, questions, and theoretical framework used), 2)
procedures for data collection, 3) questions used in the actual data collection, and 4) a
guide for the case study report (Yin, 2014). A second method for improving reliability at
that stage is developing a case study database (Yin, 2014). In data analysis, “checkcoding,” where two researchers independently code text and then compare results via a
formula (where the number of agreements are divided by the sum of the total number of
agreements and disagreements), can improve reliability of coding (Miles & Huberman,
1994). Check-coding is also called inter-coder or inter-rater reliability.
To improve the reliability of my case studies I used a case study protocol in data
collection. In data analysis, I reviewed all coding at least twice to confirm I coded in a
consistent manner. Check-coding or inter-coder reliability would have further improved
334
reliability; however, I did not have the time or resources to pursue that path. Thus, that
issue remains a limitation of the case studies and my findings.
8.4 Future Research
As discussed in the ‘Future Research’ section of Chapter 7, further research in
decision making processes can build on or verify my research findings in a number of
ways. Additional case studies will help disprove or verify my preliminary findings on
what characteristics of a decision making process influence its outcomes. These case
studies could take one of two approaches. Following my approach, the case studies could
collect data after a decision is made by asking participants to reflect on their experiences
and share their views. Alternatively, a researcher could gather baseline data prior to or in
the early stages of a decision making process and then collect additional data after the
decision has been made. This would allow the researcher to better document the existing
positions and initial status of byproducts like trust and an understanding of the ecological
system and then see how they evolved during the decision making process.
Instead of qualitative case studies, future researchers can also adopt a quantitative
approach in which they utilize my survey (or some variation of it) to explore correlations
between the characteristics of a process and its outcomes. With a larger data set,
researchers can use statistical analyses to see if there is a correlation between
accountability, information, and inclusivity scores and decision scores. A downside to
this approach is that the current survey model does not evaluate context or byproducts in
a quantitative way that is amenable to statistical analysis. In the future, myself and others
might consider exploring ways to measure context and byproducts in a quantitative way
to allow for quantitative analysis of those factors.
335
In addition to further studies to vet and verify my results, I recommend two
topical areas further investigate. First, I recommend that researcher direct their attention
to the interactions of the various process categories in order to identify trends related to
how characteristics of the process interact to either promote or prevent good governance.
My initial findings indicate that the intersection of two or more process characteristics
may have greater influence on a decision or byproduct. One example of this in the
adaptive governance literature is participatory capacity, which is a combination of
accountability and inclusivity (Bankes & Cosens, 2014; Chaffin et al., 2014; Cosens et
al., 2014).
A second topical area for future research in decision making process is how best to
assess context and move beyond simple documentation of it in a description of the
context. Because no two places are identical, we will never identify an accurate
prescription for every context. However, a standardized approach to documenting context
and evaluating how context is considered in a decision making process will allow us to
better identify when a lesson may be transferrable to a different basin. Geography, and its
long history of examining the importance of place, is a particularly well-suited discipline
to this endeavor (Brunckhorst, 2010; Lebel, Garden, & Imamura, 2005). Likewise, the
work by Elinor Ostrom and her colleagues on her SES framework as well as the work
done by Resilience Alliance in their workbook on resilience assessments are logical
launching points for examining the role of context in governance (Ostrom, 2007, 2009).
336
9 Bibliography
Adger, W. N. (2000). Social and ecological resilience: are they related? Progress in
Human Geography, 24(3), 347 –364. doi:10.1191/030913200701540465
Adger, W. N., Brown, K., Fairbrass, J., Jordan, A., Paavola, J., Rosendo, S., & Seyfang,
G. (2003). Governance for sustainability: towards a `thick’ analysis of
environmental decisionmaking. Environment and Planning, 35, 1095 – 1110.
doi:DOI:10.1068/a35289
Aligica, P. D. (2006). Institutional and Stakeholder Mapping: Frameworks for Policy
Analysis and Institutional Change. Public Organization Review, 6(1), 79–90.
doi:10.1007/s11115-006-6833-0
Arksey, H., & Knight, P. (1999). Interviewing for social scientists : an introductory
resource with examples. London: SAGE.
Armitage, D., & Plummer, R. (2010). Adaptive capacity and environmental governance.
(D. R. Armitage & R. Plummer, Eds.). Berlin: Springer-Verlag. doi:10.1007/978-3642-12194-4
Bakker, K. (2002). Good Governance in Restructuring Water Supply : A Handbook Good
Governance in Restructuring Water Supply :
Bankes, N. (1996). The Columbia Basin and the Columbia River Treaty: Canadian
Perspectives in the 1990s.
Bankes, N. (2012). The Flood Control Regime of the Columbia River Treaty: Before and
After 2024. Washington Journal of Environmental Law & Policy, 1–72.
Bankes, N., & Cosens, B. (2012). The Future of the Columbia River Treaty. Toronto,
Canada.
Bankes, N., & Cosens, B. (2014). Protocols for Adaptive Water Governance : The Future
of the Columbia River Treaty. Toronto, Canada.
Barnett, L. (2012). Canada’s Approach to the Treaty -Making Process (No. Publication
No. 2008-45-E). Ottawa, Canada. Retrieved from
http://www.parl.gc.ca/content/lop/researchpublications/2008-45-e.htm
Barton, J. (2010). The Columbia River Treaty: A Model for International Water Resource
Collaboration. In United States Society on Dams Annual Meeting and Conference,
“Collaborative Management of Integrated Watersheds” (pp. 965–976). United
States Society on Dams. Retrieved from
http://ussdams.com/proceedings/USSDproceedings2010.pdf
337
BC Hydro. (2012). Non-Treaty Storage Agreement Fact Sheet. Retrieved from
https://www.bchydro.com/content/dam/hydro/medialib/internet/documents/stakehol
der_engagement/ntsa_fact_sheet_march.pdf
BC Hydro and Power Authority. (2007a). Columbia River Project Water Use Plan.
Retrieved from
https://www.bchydro.com/about/sustainability/conservation/water_use_planning/sou
thern_interior/columbia_river.html
BC Hydro and Power Authority. (2007b). Duncan Dam Project Water Use Plan.
Retrieved from Columbia and Duncan WUPs
BC Hydro and Power Authority. (2013a). BC Columbia River Treaty Review Technical
Conference. In Breakout Session 3: Lower Columbia River. Castlegar, BC.
Retrieved from http://blog.gov.bc.ca/columbiarivertreaty/community-sessions/
BC Hydro and Power Authority. (2013b). Canadian Entity’s Preliminary View of
Columbia River Treaty Post-2024 Called Upon Procedures. Retrieved from
http://blog.gov.bc.ca/columbiarivertreaty/files/2012/07/130214CanadianEntity_View_CRT_Post-2024_CU-FINAL4.pdf
BC Ministry of Energy and Mines. (2012). A Review of the Range of Impacts and
Benefits of the Columbia River Treaty on Basin Communities , the Region and the
Province Ministry of Energy , Mines and Natural Gas. Victoria, BC. Retrieved from
http://blog.gov.bc.ca/columbiarivertreaty/files/2012/07/A-Review-of-the-Range-ofImpacts-and-Benefits-of-the-Columbia-River-Treaty6.pdf
BC Ministry of Energy and Mines. (2013a). BC CRT Review Frequently Asked
Questions. Retrieved January 1, 2014, from
http://blog.gov.bc.ca/columbiarivertreaty/faqs/
BC Ministry of Energy and Mines. (2013b). Columbia River Basin Sounding Board
Group: Terms of Reference. Victoria, BC. Retrieved from
http://blog.gov.bc.ca/columbiarivertreaty/files/2013/04/Sounding-Board-TOR-April2.pdf
BC Ministry of Energy and Mines. (2013c). Libby VARQ Flood Control Impacts on
Kootenay River Dikes: Summary Fact Sheet. Victoria, BC. Retrieved from
http://blog.gov.bc.ca/columbiarivertreaty/files/2012/07/CRT_Factsheet_LibbyFlood
_v02.pdf
BC Ministry of Energy and Mines. (2013d). US Benefits from the Columbia River Treaty
– Past , Present and Future: A Province of British Columbia Perspective. Victoria,
BC. Retrieved from http://blog.gov.bc.ca/columbiarivertreaty/files/2012/07/USBenefits-from-CRT-June-20-13-
338
2.pdfhttp://blog.gov.bc.ca/columbiarivertreaty/files/2012/07/US-Benefits-fromCRT-June-20-13-2.pdf
BC Ministry of Energy and Mines. (2014). Columbia River Treaty Review Public
Consultation Report. Victoria, BC. Retrieved from
http://blog.gov.bc.ca/columbiarivertreaty/files/2013/09/Columbia-River-TreatyReview-Public-Consultation-Report-_March-2014.pdf
BC Treaty Commission. (2015). Negotiation Update. Retrieved January 1, 2015, from
http://www.bctreaty.net/files/updates.php
Beesley, J. (1970). Canadian practice in international law during 1969 as reflected mainly
in public correspondence and statements of the Department of External Affairs. In
C. Bourne (Ed.), The Canadian Yearbook of International Law (Vol. 8, pp. 337–
384). Victoria, BC: University of British Columbia Press.
Bellamy, J. A., Walker, D. H., Mcdonald, G. T., & Syme, G. J. (2001). A systems
approach to the evaluation of natural resource management initiatives, 407–423.
doi:10.1006/jema.2001.0493
Berkes, F., & Folke, C. (1998). Linking social and ecological systems: management
practices and social mechanisms for building resilience. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Bhattacherjee, A. (2012). Social Science Research: Principles, Methods, and Practices.
Biermann, F., & Gupta, A. (2011a). Accountability and legitimacy in earth system
governance: A research framework. Ecological Economics, 70(11), 1856–1864.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.04.008
Biermann, F., & Gupta, A. (2011b). Accountability and legitimacy: An analytical
challenge for earth system governance. Ecological Economics, 70(11), 1854–1855.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2011.07.017
Bingham, L. B. (2009). Collaborative Governance: Emerging Practices and the
Incomplete Legal Framework for Citizen and Stakeholder Voice. Journal of Dispute
Resolution, (2), 270–325. Retrieved from
http://works.bepress.com/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&amp;context=lisa_bing
ham
Bonneville Power Administration. (2011). Fact Sheet: BPA and BC Hydro Seek to
Negotiate New Long-Term Water Storage Agreement. Portland, OR: Bonneville
Power Administration. Retrieved from
http://www.bpa.gov/news/pubs/FactSheets/fs-201105-bpa-and-bc-hydro-seek-tonegotiate-new-long-term-water-storage-agreement.pdf
339
Bonneville Power Administration. (2012a). Administrator’s Decision Record: NonTreaty Storage Agreement with BC Hydro. Portland, OR: Bonneville Power
Administration. Retrieved from
http://www.bpa.gov/news/pubs/RecordsofDecision/rod-20120323-Non-Treatystorage-agreement-with-BC-Hydro.pdf
Bonneville Power Administration. (2012b, June). Hydropower Generation and Capacity.
Portland, OR.
Bonneville Power Administration, US Army Corps of Engineers, & US Bureau of
Reclamation. (2001). The Columbia River Treaty Inside Story. Portland, OR:
Bonneville Power Administration US Army Corps of Engineers US Bureau of
Reclamation.
British Columbia Water Act. , Pub. L. No. Chapter 483 (1996). Canada. Retrieved from
http://www.bclaws.ca/EPLibraries/bclaws_new/document/ID/freeside/00_96483_01
Brown, J. (2013). Can Participation Change the Geography of Water? Lessons from
South Africa. Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 103(November),
271–279. doi:10.1080/00045608.2013.754685
Brunckhorst, D. J. (2010). Using context in novel community-based natural resource
management: landscapes of property, policy and place. Environmental
Conservation, 37(01), 16–22. doi:10.1017/S0376892910000342
Cairns, R. D. (1992). Natural Resources and Canadian Federalism: Decentralization,
Recurring Conflict, and Resolution. Publius, 22(1), 55–70.
Canadian and United States Entities. (2010). Columbia River Treaty 2014/2024 Review
Phase 1 Report. Canadian and United States Entities. Retrieved from
http://www.crt2014-2024review.gov/Files/Phase1Report_7-28-2010.pdf
Canadian Entity, & United States Entity. (2010a). Columbia River Treaty 2014/2024
Review Phase 1 Report Appendices. Retrieved from
http://www.bpa.gov/news/pubs/GeneralPublications/crt-Phase-1-ReportAppendices-July-2010.pdf
Canadian Entity, & United States Entity. (2010b). Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024
Review Phase 1 - Technical Studies. Retrieved from http://www.crt20142024review.gov/TechnicalStudies.aspx
Cañas, A. J., Coffey, J. W., Carnot, M. J., Feltovich, P., Hoffman, R. R., Feltovich, J., &
Novak, J. D. (2003). A Summary of Literature Pertaining to the Use of Concept
Mapping Techniques and Technologies for Education and Performance Support.
Pensacola, FL. Retrieved from
340
http://www.ihmc.us/users/acanas/Publications/ConceptMapLitReview/IHMC
Literature Review on Concept Mapping.pdf
Carr, G., Blöschl, G., & Loucks, D. P. (2012). Evaluating participation in water resource
management: A review. Water Resources Research, 48(11), n/a–n/a.
doi:10.1029/2011WR011662
Chaffin, B. C. (2014). Reallocating Resources, Rebuilding Community: The Klamath
Basin Agreements and the Emergence of Adaptive Governance. Oregon State
University.
Chaffin, B. C., Gosnell, H., & Cosens, B. A. (2014). A decade of adaptive governance
scholarship : synthesis and future directions, 19(3).
Cheng, A. S., & Sturtevant, V. E. (2012). A framework for assessing collaborative
capacity in community-based public forest management. Environmental
Management, 49(3), 675–89. doi:10.1007/s00267-011-9801-6
Chess, C. (2000). Evaluating environmental public participation: methodological
questions. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 43(6), 769–784.
Coates, K. (2008). The Indian Act and the Future of Aboriginal Governance in Canada.
Retrieved from
http://fngovernance.org/publications/research_article/the_indian_act_and_the_future
_of_aboriginal_governance_in_canada
Cody, B. A., Schneider, J., Tiemann, M., & Relf, G. (2012). Selected Federal Water
Activities : Agencies , Authorities , and Congressional Committees Specialist on the
Congress.
Columbia River Basin Biodiversity Atlas. (2015). Species in the Columbia River Basin.
Columbia River Basin Biodiversity Atlas. Retrieved October 4, 2015, from
http://biodiversityatlas.org/species/index.php
Columbia River Inter-Tribal Fish Commission. (2014). Columbia Basin Passage Barriers.
Retrieved January 1, 2015, from http://www.critfc.org/tribal-treaty-fishingrights/policy-support/columbia-river-treaty/area-blocked-salmon-columbia-basin/
Commission of the European Communities. (2001). European Governance: A White
Paper. Brussels, Belgium. Retrieved from
http://aei.pitt.edu/1188/1/european_governance_wp_COM_2001_428.pdf
Corwin, R. S. (2013). Hearing on The Future of the US-Canada Columbia River Treaty –
Building on 60 years of Coordinated Power Generation and Flood Control. Pasco,
341
WA. Retrieved from
http://naturalresources.house.gov/calendar/eventsingle.aspx?EventID=363025
Cosens, B. (2010a). Transboundary River Governance in the Face of Uncertainty:
Resilience Theory and the Columbia River Treaty. Journal of Land, Resources &
Environmental Law, 30(2), 229–265. Retrieved from
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1942877
Cosens, B. (2010b). Transboundary River Governance in the Face of Uncertainty:
Resilience Theory and the Columbia River Treaty. Journal of Land Resources, and
Environmental Law, 30, 229–265. Retrieved from
http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=1942877
Cosens, B. a. (2013). Legitimacy, adaptation, and resilience in ecosystem management.
Ecology and Society, 18(1). doi:10.5751/ES-05093-180103
Cosens, B., & Fremier, A. (2014). Assessing System Resilience and Ecosystem Services
in Large River Basins: A Case Study of the Columbia River Basin. Idaho Law
Review, 51, 91–125.
Cosens, B., Gunderson, L., & Chaffin, B. C. (2014). The Adaptive Water Governance
Project: Assessing Law, Resilience, and Governance in Regional Socio-Ecological
Water Systems Facing a Changing Climate. Idaho Law Review, 1, 1–27.
Cosens, B., & Williams, M. K. (2012). Resilience and Water Governance : Adaptive
Governance in the Columbia. Ecology and Society, 17(4), 3. Retrieved from
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol17/iss4/art3/
Cowie, G., & Borrett, S. (2005). Institutional perspectives on participation and
information in water management. Environmental Modelling & Software, 20(4),
469–483. doi:10.1016/j.envsoft.2004.02.006
Creswell, J. W. (2013). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design Choosing Among Five
Approaches (3rd ed.). Los Angeles, CA: SAGE Publications.
Curtin, C. (2014). Resilience design: toward a synthesis of cognition, learning, and
collaboration for adaptive problem solving in conservation and natural resource
stewardship. Ecology and Society, 19(2), 15. Retrieved from
http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/handle/10535/9367
D’Estree, T. P., & Colby, B. G. (2004). Braving the Currents: Evaluating Environmental
Conflict Resolution in the River Basins of the American West. Boston, MA: Kluwer
Academic Publishers.
342
Daniels, S., & Walker, G. (2001). Working through environmental conflict: The
collaborative learning approach. Westport, Connecticut: Praeger.
Daniels, S., & Walker, G. (2012). Lessons from the trenches: Twenty years of using
systems thinking in natural resource conflict situations. Systems Research and
Behavioral Science, 29, 104–115. doi:10.1002/sres
Daniels, S., Walker, G., & Emborg, Je. (2012). The unifying negotiation framework: A
model of policy discourse. Conflict Resolution Quarterly, 30(1), 3–31.
doi:10.1002/crq
Dietz, T., Ostrom, E., & Stern, P. C. (2003). The Struggle to Govern the Commons.
Science, 302(5652), 1907–1912.
DuMond, H., Ogren, K., Petersen-Perlman, J., & Watson, J. E. (2012). Voices of the
Basin. USA. Retrieved from http://hdl.handle.net/1957/35406
Engle, N. L. (2011). Adaptive capacity and its assessment. Global Environmental
Change, 21(2), 647–656. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2011.01.019
Esty, D. (2006). Good governance at the supranational scale: globalizing administrative
law. Yale Law Journal, 115(7), 1490–1562.
Fennell, D., Plummer, R., & Marschke, M. (2008). Is adaptive co-management ethical?
Journal of Environmental Management, 88(1), 62–75.
doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2007.01.020
Ferrey, S. (2010). Environmental Law Examples & Explanations (5th ed.). New York,
NY: Aspen Publishers, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.amazon.com/dp/0735563128
Flyvbjerg, B. (2006). Five Misunderstandings About Case-Study Research. Qualitative
Inquiry, 12(2), 219–245. doi:10.1177/1077800405284363
Folke, C., Carpenter, S. R., Walker, B., Scheffer, M., Chapin, T., & Rockström, J. (2010).
Resilience Thinking : Integrating Resilience , Adaptability and. Ecology and Society,
15(4). Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art20/
Folke, C., Hahn, T., Olsson, P., & Norberg, J. (2005). Adaptive Governance of SocialEcological Systems. Annual Review of Environment and Resources, 30(1), 441–473.
doi:10.1146/annurev.energy.30.050504.144511
Frame, T., Gunton, T., & Day, J. (2004). The role of collaboration in environmental
management: an evaluation of land and resource planning in British Columbia.
Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 47(1), 59–82.
343
George, A., & Bennett, A. (2005). Case Studies and Theory Development in Social
Sciences. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Ginalias, J. L. (2008). A Policy Analysis of the Columbia River Treaty Using ValueFocused Thinking and Integrative Bargaining to Create Value When Renegotiating
the Treaty. University of British Columbia.
Gomm, R., Hammersley, M., & Foster, P. (2000). Case study and generalisation. In R.
Gomm, M. Hammersley, & P. Foster (Eds.), Case Study Method: Key Issues, Key
Texts (pp. 98–115). London: Sage Publications.
Gosnell, H., & Kelly, E. (2010). Peace on the River? Social-Ecological Restoration and
Large Dam Removal in the Klamath Basin, USA. Water Alternatives, 3(2), 361–
383. Retrieved from http://www.wateralternatives.org/index.php?option=com_docman&task=doc_download&gid=98
Guest, G., Bunce, A., & Johnson, L. (2006). How Many Interviews Are Enough?: An
Experiment with Data Saturation and Variability. Field Methods, 18(1), 59–82.
doi:10.1177/1525822X05279903
Gunderson, L., & Light, S. S. (2006). Adaptive management and adaptive governance in
the everglades ecosystem. Policy Sciences, 39(4), 323–334. doi:10.1007/s11077006-9027-2
Hamlet, A. (2003). The role of transboundary agreements in the Columbia River basin:
an integrated assessment in the context of historic development, climate, and
evolving water policy. In H. Diaz & B. Morehouse (Eds.), Climate and water:
transboundary challenges in the Americas (pp. 263–289). Dordrecht, The
Netherlands: Kluwer.
Hamlet, A., Lee, S.-Y., Mickelson, K. E., & Elsner, M. M. (2010). Effects of projected
climate change on energy supply and demand in the Pacific Northwest and
Washington State. Climatic Change, 102(1-2), 103–128. doi:10.1007/s10584-0109857-y
Harden, B. (1996). A River Lost: The Life and Death of the Columbia. W.W. Norton.
Hatcher, K. L., & Jones, J. A. (2013). Climate and Streamflow Trends in the Columbia
River Basin : Evidence for Ecological and Engineering Resilience to Climate
Change. Atmosphere-Ocean, (June), 1–20. doi:10.1080/07055900.2013.808167
Hearns, G. S. (2008). The Columbia River Treaty: A Synopsis of Structure, Content, and
Operations. Retrieved from
http://www.ccrf.ca/uploads/Hearns_CRT_Structure_and_Content_Finalrev_200912
07.pdf
344
Hearns, G. S. (2010). Analysis of process mechanisms promoting cooperation in
transboundary waters. University of British Columbia. Retrieved from
https://circle.ubc.ca/handle/2429/28367
Hearns, G. S., Paisley, R. K., & Henshaw, T. W. (2008). Institutional Architecture and
the Good Governance of International Transboundary Waters, (182).
Heemskerk, M., Wilson, K., & Pavao-Zuckerman, M. (2003). Conceptual models as tools
for communication across disciplines. Ecology and Society, 7(3), 8. doi:8
Holbrook, S. (1990). The Columbia: The Classic Portrait of the Great River of the
Northwest. San Francisco, CA: Comstock Editions.
Holderman, C., Hoyle, G., Hardy, R., & Anders, P. (2009). Libby Dam Hydro-electric
Project Mitigation: Efforts for Downstream Ecosystem Restoration.
Holling, C. (1973). Resilience and Stability of Ecological Systems. Annual Review of
Ecology and Systematics, 4, 1–23.
Holling, C. S. (2001). Understanding the Complexity of Economic , Ecological , and
Social Systems. Ecosystems, 4(5), 390–405. doi:10.1007/s10021-001-0101-5
Huitema, D., Mostert, E., Egas, W., Moellenkamp, S., Pahl-wostl, C., & Yalcin, R.
(2009). Adaptive Water Governance : Assessing the Institutional Prescriptions of
Adaptive ( Co- ) Management from a Governance Perspective and Defining a
Research Agenda. Ecology and Society, 14(1), 26. Retrieved from
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol14/iss1/art26/
Hutchings, J., & Post, J. (2013). Gutting Canada’s Fisheries Act: No Fishery, No Fish
Habitat Protection. Fisheries, 38(11), 497–501. doi:10.1080/03632415.2013.848345
Hyde, J. M. (2010). Columbia River Treaty Past and Future. Portland, OR: Hydrovision.
Retrieved from http://www.crt20142024review.gov/Files/10Aug_Hyde_TreatyPastFuture_FinalRev.pdf
IPCC. (2014). Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fifth
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Geneva,
Switzerland. Retrieved from https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/syr/
Iribarnegaray, M., & Seghezzo, L. (2012). Governance, Sustainability and Decision
Making in Water and Sanitation Management Systems. Sustainability, 4(12), 2922–
2945. doi:10.3390/su4112922
Kaplan, A. (1964). The Conduct of Inquiry. San Francisco, CA: Chandler.
345
Ketchum, K. J., & Barroso, L. A. (2006). The Columbia River Treaty - an example of
effective cross-border river regulation. In 10th Symposium of Specialists in Electric
Operational and Expansion Planning. Florianopolis, Brazil. Retrieved from
http://www.psr-inc.com/psr/download/papers/2006_X_SEPOPE-CRTpaperfinal.pdf
Kwasniak, A. (2004). Slow on the trigger: the Department of Fisheries and Oceans, the
Fisheries Act and the Canadian Environmental Assessment Act. Dalhousie Law
Journal, 27(2), 347–377.
Lang, W., & Carriker, R. (Eds.). (2000). Great River of the West: Essays on the
Columbia River. Seattle, WA: University of Washington Press.
Lantz, M. T., Bourget, E. C., & Manous, J. D. (2014). Aspects Governing Water
Allocation in the United States. Alexandria, VA.
Lebel, L., Anderies, J. M., Campbell, B., & Folke, C. (2006). Governance and the
Capacity to Manage Resilience in Regional Social-Ecological Systems. Ecology and
Society, 11(1), 19. Retrieved from
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art19/
Lebel, L., Garden, P., & Imamura, M. (2005). The politics of scale, position, and place in
the governance of water resources in the Mekong region. Ecology and Society,
10(2). Retrieved from http://digitalcommons.usu.edu/unf_research/32/
Lee, K. N. (1999). Appraising Adaptive Management. Conservation Ecology, 3(2), 3.
Retrieved from http://www.consecol.org/vol3/iss2/art3
Lesser, J. (1990). Resale of the Columbia River Treaty Downstream Power Benefits: One
Road from Here to There. Natural Resources Journal, 30(5638), 609–628.
Lincoln, Y., & Guba, E. (2000). The only generalization is: There is no generalization. In
R. Gomm, M. Hammersley, & P. Foster (Eds.), Case Study Method: Key Issues, Key
Texts (pp. 27–44). London: Sage Publications.
Lockwood, M. (2010). Good governance for terrestrial protected areas : A framework ,
principles and performance outcomes. Journal of Environmental Management,
91(3), 754–766. doi:10.1016/j.jenvman.2009.10.005
Matheussen, B., Matheussen, B., Kirschbaum, R. L., Kirschbaum, R. L., Goodman, I. a,
Goodman, I. a, … Lettenmaier, D. P. (2000). Eff€ ects of land cover change on
streamflow in the interior Columbia River Basin (USA and Canada). Hydrological
Processes, 14, 867–885.
346
Mayring, P. (2007). On generalization in qualitatively oriented research. Forum:
Qualitative Social Research, 8(3). Retrieved from http://www.qualitativeresearch.net/index.php/fqs/article/view/291/641
McGinnis, M. (2011). An introduction to IAD and the language of the Ostrom workshop:
A simple guide to a complex framework. Policy Studies Journal, 39(1), 169–183.
doi:10.1111/j.1541-0072.2010.00401.x
Mckenzie, S. (2013). A River Runs Through It : The Future of the Columbia River Treaty
, Water Rights , Development , and Climate Change. Georgia State University Law
Review, 29(4), 921–958.
McKinney, M., Baker, L., Buvel, A., Fischer, A., Foster, D., & Paulu, C. (2010).
Managing Transboundary Natural Resources: An Assessment of the Need to Revise
and Update the Columbia River Treaty. West Northwest Journal of Environmental
Law and Policy, 16, 307.
Meadows, D. (2008). Thinking in Systems: A Primer. (D. Wright, Ed.). White River
Junction, VA: Chelsea Green Publishing.
Mendosa, G., & Cardwell, H. (2011). The Use of Collaborative Modelling for Decision
Making in IWRM. Water Resources IMPACT, 13(3), 17–20.
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. (1994). Qualitative Data Analysis (2nd ed.). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Molle, F., Wester, P., & Hirsch, P. (2010). River basin closure: Processes, implications
and responses. Agricultural Water Management.
Moore, C., Harty, J. M., & Woodrow, P. (2001). Situation Assessment & Prospects for
Mediation. Retrieved from http://www.mediate.org/wpcontent/uploads/domestic_klamathbasin.pdf
Muckleston, K. (2003). International Management in the Columbia River System.
Corvallis, OR. Retrieved from
http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0013/001332/133292e.pdf
Munaretto, S., Siciliano, G., & Turvani, M. E. (2014). Integrating adaptive governance
and participatory multicriteria methods: a framework for climate adaptation
governance. Ecology and S, 19(2), 74. Retrieved from
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol19/iss2/art74/
Mwanza, D. D. (2005). Promoting good governance through regulatory frameworks in
African water utilities. Water Science and Technology, 51(8), 71–79.
347
National Research Council. (2004). Managing the Columbia: Instream Flows, Water
Withdrawals, and Salmon Survival. Washington DC: The National Academies Press.
Nkhata, A. B., Breen, C. M., & Freimund, W. A. (2008). Resilient Social Relationships
and Collaboration in the Management of Social – Ecological Systems, 13(1).
Norman, E., & Bakker, K. (2009). Transgressing Scales : Water Governance Across the
Transgressing Scales : Water Governance Across the Canada – U . S . Borderland.
Annals of the Association of American Geographers, 99(1), 99–117.
doi:10.1080/00045600802317218
Norman, E., Cohen, A., & Bakker, K. (Eds.). (2013). Water Without Borders? Canada,
the United States, and Shared Waters. Toronto, Canada: University of Toronto
Press.
Northwest Power and Conservation Council. (2014). Northwest Power and Conservation
Council Fish and Wildlife Program. Northwest Power and Conservation Council
Fish and Wildlife Program. Retrieved January 1, 2015, from
http://www.nwcouncil.org/fw/program/2014-12/Program
Northwestern Division Army Corps of Engineers. (2004). Columbia River Treaty
Summary. Portland, OR: Army Corps of Engineers. Retrieved from
http://www.nwd-wc.usace.army.mil/PB/BRZ/TreatySummary.pdf
Novak, J. D., & Cañas, A. J. (2008). The Theory Underlying Concept Maps and How to
Construct and Use Them 1, 1–36.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory. (2012). LANDSCAN 2012 Global Population Dataset.
LANDSCAN. Retrieved from http://web.ornl.gov/sci/landscan/
Olsson, P., Folke, C., & Berkes, F. (2004). Adaptive Comanagement for Building
Resilience in Social – Ecological Systems. Environmental Management, 34(1), 75–
90. doi:10.1007/s00267-003-0101-7
Olsson, P., Gunderson, L. H., Carpenter, S. R., Ryan, P., Lebel, L., Folke, C., & Holling,
C. S. (2006). Shooting the Rapids : Navigating Transitions to Adaptive Governance
of Social-Ecological Systems. Ecology and Society, 11(1), 18. Retrieved from
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol11/iss1/art18/
Ostrom, E. (2007). Institutional Rational Choice: An Assessment of the Institutional
Analysis and Development Framework (pp. 21–64). Boulder. Colorado: Westview
Press.
Ostrom, E. (2009). A general framework for analyzing sustainability of social-ecological
systems. Science, 325(5939), 419–22. doi:10.1126/science.1172133
348
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2002). Towards sustainability in the water sector–The importance of
human actors and processes of social learning. Aquatic Sciences, 64, 394–411.
Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/PL00012594
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2007). Transitions towards adaptive management of water facing climate
and global change. Water Resources Management, 21(1), 49–62.
doi:10.1007/s11269-006-9040-4
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2008). Requirements for adaptive water management. In C. Pahl-Wostl,
P. Kabat, & J. Möltgen (Eds.), Adaptive and integrated water management (pp. 1–
22). Berlin: Springer. Retrieved from http://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/9783-540-75941-6_1
Pahl-Wostl, C. (2009). A conceptual framework for analysing adaptive capacity and
multi-level learning processes in resource governance regimes. Global
Environmental Change, 19(3), 354–365. doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2009.06.001
Pahl-Wostl, C., Conca, K., Kramer, A., Maestu, J., & Schmidt, F. (2013). Missing links
in global water governance: a processes-oriented analysis. Ecology and Society,
18(2), 33. Retrieved from http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol18/iss2/art33/
Pahl-Wostl, C., Craps, M., & Dewulf, A. (2007). Social learning and water resources
management. Ecology and Society, 12(2). Retrieved from
http://www.ibcperu.org/doc/isis/8547.pdf
Pahl-Wostl, C., Holtz, G., Kastens, B., & Knieper, C. (2010). Analyzing complex water
governance regimes: the Management and Transition Framework. Environmental
Science & Policy, 13(7), 571–581. doi:10.1016/j.envsci.2010.08.006
Pahl-Wostl, C., Sendzimir, J., Jeffrey, P., Aerts, J., Berkamp, G., & Cross, K. (2007).
Managing Change toward Adaptive Water Management through Social Learning.
Ecology and Society, 12(2), 30. Retrieved from
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol12/iss2/art30/
Paisley, R. K., Leon, C., Graizbord, B., & Bricklemyer, E. C. (2004). Transboundary
water management: An institutional comparison among Canada, the United States,
and Mexico. Ocean and Coastal Law Journal, 9, 177–194.
Parkes, M. W., Morrison, K. E., Bunch, M. J., Hallström, L. K., Neudoerffer, R. C.,
Venema, H. D., & Waltner-Toews, D. (2010). Towards integrated governance for
water, health and social–ecological systems: The watershed governance prism.
Global Environmental Change, 20(4), 693–704.
doi:10.1016/j.gloenvcha.2010.06.001
349
Pereira, Â. G., & Quintana, S. C. (2009). 3 pillars and 1 beam: Quality of river basin
governance processes. Ecological Economics, 68(4), 940–954.
doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.09.014
Petrosky, C. E., & Schaller, H. A. (2010). Influence of river conditions during seaward
migration and ocean conditions on survival rates of Snake River Chinook salmon
and steelhead. Ecology of Freshwater Fish [Ecol. Freshw. Fish]. Vol. 19, (4), 520–
536. Retrieved from
http://csaweb107v.csa.com/ids70/view_record.php?id=2&recnum=0&log=from_res
&SID=un3sjts99571h8jgk2uphs2g10&mark_id=search:2:0,0,25
Plummer, R. (2009). The adaptive co-management process: An initial synthesis of
representative models and influential variables. Ecology and Society, 14(2), 24.
doi:10.1007/s11306-008-0108-4
Plummer, R., & Armitage, D. (2007). A resilience-based framework for evaluating
adaptive co-management: Linking ecology, economics and society in a complex
world. Ecological Economics, 61(1), 62–74. doi:10.1016/j.ecolecon.2006.09.025
Plummer, R., Armitage, D., & Loë, R. C. De. (2013). Adaptive Comanagement and Its
Relationship to Environmental. Ecology and Society, 18(1), 21.
Plummer, R., & FitzGibbon, J. (2004). Co-management of Natural Resources: A
Proposed Framework. Environmental Management, 33(6), 876–885.
doi:10.1007/s00267-003-3038-y
Plummer, R., & FitzGibbon, J. (2007). Connecting adaptive co-management, social
learning and social capital through theory and practice. In D. R. Armitage, F.
Berkes, & N. C. Doubleday (Eds.), Adaptive Co-management: Learning,
Collaboration and Multi-Level Governance (p. 360). Vancouver, BC: University of
British Columbia.
Province of British Columbia. (1998). Water Use Plan Guidelines. Victoria, BC.
Province of British Columbia. (2014). B.C. Decision for the Columbia River Treaty
Review. Victoria, BC. Retrieved from
http://blog.gov.bc.ca/columbiarivertreaty/files/2012/03/BC_Decision_on_Columbia
_River_Treaty.pdf
Province of British Columbia. (2015). Columbia River Treaty Review. Columbia River
Treaty Review. Retrieved January 12, 2015, from
http://blog.gov.bc.ca/columbiarivertreaty/
350
Quig, P. (2004). Testing the Waters : Aboriginal Title Claims to Water Spaces and
Submerged Lands – An Overview. Les Cahiers de Droit, 45(4), 659.
doi:10.7202/043812ar
Ragin, C. C. (1987). The Comparative Method: Moving Beyond Qualitative and
Quantitative Strategies. Berkley, CA: University of California Press.
Ragin, C. C. (2008). Redesigning Social Inquiry: Fuzzy Sets and Beyond. Chicago, IL:
The University of Chicago Press.
Resilience Alliance. (2010). Assessing Resilience in Social-Ecological Systems:
Workbook for Practitioners, Version 2.0.
Rogers, P., & Hall, A. (2003). Effective water governance (No. 7). Stockholm, Sweden.
Retrieved from http://dlc.dlib.indiana.edu/dlc/handle/10535/4995
Scholz, J. T., & Stiftel, B. (Eds.). (2005). Adaptive Governance and Water Conflict: New
Institutions for Collaborative Planning. Washington DC: Resources for the Future.
Scholz, R. (2011). Environmental Literacy in Science and Society. New York, NY:
Cambridge University Press.
Schulz, A. (2007). Creating a legal framework for good transboundary water governance
in the Zambezi and Incomati River basins. Georgetown International Environmental
Law Review, 19, 117–183. Retrieved from http://heinonlinebackup.com/hol-cgibin/get_pdf.cgi?handle=hein.journals/gintenlr19&section=12
Shirk, J. L., Ballard, H. L., Wilderman, C. C., Phillips, T., Wiggins, A., Jordan, R., …
Bonney, R. (2012). Public participation in scientific research: A framework for
deliberate design. Ecology & …, 17(2), 29+.
Shurts, J., & Paisley, R. K. (2013). The Columbia River Treaty. In E. Norman, A. Cohen,
& K. Bakker (Eds.), Water Without Borders? Canada, the United States, and Shared
Waters (pp. 139–158). Toronto, Canada: Univeristy of Toronto Press.
Smith, C. L. (2002). Institutional mapping of Oregon coastal watershed management
options. Ocean & Coastal Management, 45(6-7), 357–375. doi:10.1016/S09645691(02)00075-3
Smith, H. (1992). Forgotten Truth: The Common Vision of the World’s Religions. San
Francisco, CA: Harper.
Sparling, D. (2014). Natural Resource Administration Wildlife, Fisheries, Forests and
Parks. San Diego,CA: Elsevier.
351
Stake, R. (2000). The case study method in social inquiry. In R. Gomm, M. Hammersley,
& P. Foster (Eds.), Case Study Method: Key Issues, Key Texts (pp. 19–26). London.
Stålgren, P. (2006). Corruption in the Water Sector: Causes, Consequences and Potential
Reform (No. 4). Stockholm, Sweden. Retrieved from
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja
&uact=8&ved=0CCUQFjABahUKEwikjfzLkPzGAhUHLogKHThDAYY&url=http
://www.unwater.org/downloads/PB5_Corruption_in_the_water_sector_2006.pdf&ei
=wJG2VaStHIfcoAS4hoWwCA&usg=AFQjCNH4wD
Stephan, N., & Rea, M. (2011a, February). 2014/2024 Treaty Review: Regional Briefing.
Portland, OR.
Stephan, N., & Rea, M. (2011b, September). 2014/2024 Treaty Review: Alternatives
Development Listening Session. Portland, OR.
Stewart, J. M. P., & Sinclair, A. J. (2007). Meaningful public participation in
environmental assessment: Perspectives from Canadian participants, proponents,
and government. Journal of Environmental Assessment Policy and Management,
9(2), 161–183.
Stimie, C., Richters, E., Thompson, H., Perret, S., Matete, M., Abdallah, K., …
Mulibana, E. (2001). Hydro-Institutional Mapping in the Steelpoort River Basin ,
South Africa (No. 17). Battaramulla, Sri Lanka. Retrieved from
http://projects.nri.org/wss-iwrm/Library/HydroInstitutional_Mapping_in_SA_vol1_WOR17.pdf
Strauss, A. L. (1987). Qualitative Analysis for Social Scientists. Cambridge, UK:
Cambridge University Press.
Suhardiman, D., & Giordano, M. (2012). Process-focused analysis in transboundary
water governance research. International Environmental Agreements, 12, 299–308.
doi:10.1007/s10784-012-9176-z
Suhardiman, D., Giordano, M., & Molle, F. (2012). Scalar Disconnect: The Logic of
Transboundary Water Governance in the Mekong. Society & Natural Resources,
25(6), 572–586. doi:10.1080/08941920.2011.604398
Swainson, N. (1986). The Columbia River Treaty-Where Do We Go From Here ?
Natural Resources Journal, 26(Spring), 243–259.
Termeer, C. J. A. M., Dewulf, A., & Lieshout, M. Van. (2010). Disentangling Scale
Approaches in Governance Research : Comparing Monocentric , Multilevel , and
Adaptive Governance. Ecology and Society, 15(4), 29. Retrieved from
http://www.ecologyandsociety.org/vol15/iss4/art29/
352
The Superintendent of the Coast. (1859). THe United States Coast Survey Showing the
Progress of the Survey during the Year 1858. Washington DC. Retrieved from
http://docs.lib.noaa.gov/rescue/cgs/001_pdf/CSC-0007.PDF
Thissen, W. A. H., & Twaalfhoven, P. G. J. (2001). Towards a conceptual structure for
evaluating policy analytic activities. European Journal of Operational Research,
129(3), 627–649. doi:10.1016/S0377-2217(99)00470-1
Uhlendahl, T., Salian, P., Casarotto, C., & Doetsch, J. (2011). Good water governance
and IWRM in Zambia: Challenges and chances. Water Policy, 13(6), 845–862.
doi:10.2166/wp.2011.155
UN World Water Assessment Programme. (2003). Water for People Water for Life.
UN World Water Assessment Programme. (2006). Water: A Shared Responsibility.
doi:10.1097/00005721-198005000-00004
United States Entity. (2000). Programmatic Record of Decision: Libby Coordination
Agreement. Portland, OR. Retrieved from
http://calwater.ca.gov/Archives/GeneralArchive/rod/ROD.pdf\nC:\Documents and
Settings\groves\My Documents\WATER\REFERENCES\CALFED\
United States Entity. (2012). Columbia River Treaty 2014/2024 Review Recent Study
Results. Portland, OR: United States Entity. Retrieved from http://www.crt20142024review.gov/Files/Columbia River Treaty Recent Study Results - FINAL June
2012 - singles.pdf
United States Entity. (2013a). Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review Sovereign
Review Team. Sovereign Review Team. Retrieved December 13, 2013, from
http://www.crt2014-2024review.gov/SovReviewTeam.aspx
United States Entity. (2013b). Columbia River Treaty 2014-2024 Review Sovereign
Technical Team. Sovereign Technical Team. Retrieved December 13, 2013, from
http://www.crt2014-2024review.gov/SovTechTeam.aspx
United States Entity. (2013c). Columbia River Treaty Review Canadian Entitlement Fact
Sheet. Retrieved from http://www.crt2014-2024review.gov/Files/Columbia River
Treaty Review - Fact Sheet - Canadian Entitlement--FOR PRINT.pdf
United States Entity. (2013d). US Columbia River Treaty 2014/2024 Review Open
House Invitation. Retrieved January 12, 2015, from http://www.crt20142024review.gov/Files/TreatyReviewOpenHouseInvitation.pdf
United States Entity. (2014a). Columbia River Treaty Review – Purpose and Future Fact
Sheet. Portland, OR. Retrieved from http://www.crt2014-
353
2024review.gov/Files/Columbia River Treaty Review - Purpose and Future Fact
Sheet--REVISED June 2014--FOR WEB.pdf
United States Entity. (2014b). US CRT 2014/2024 Current Meeting Materials. Retrieved
January 12, 2015, from http://www.crt20142024review.gov/CurrentMeetingMaterials.aspx
Universities Consortium on Columbia River Governance. (2015). A Sacred
Responsibility: Governing the Use of Water and Related Resources in the
International Columbia Basin Through the Prism of Tribes and First Nations.
University of Idaho, & Oregon State University. (2011). Combined Report on Scenario
Development for the Columbia River Treaty. Coeur d’Alene, ID: University of
Idaho. Retrieved from
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja
&uact=8&ved=0CB8QFjAA&url=http://water.oregonstate.edu/sites/default/files/ui_
osu_crt_scenario_development__combined_report_-_final1.pdf&ei=TVkVc65BZDIogTm_YGQAw&usg=AFQ
US Agency for International Development. (2009). MENA Regional Water Governance
Benchmarking Project Concept and Approach Framework. Washington DC.
Retrieved from http://liberalarts.oregonstate.edu/files/polisci/pdf/water-governanceconcept-and-approach-framework-final.pdf
US Agency for International Development. (2010). MENA Regional Water Governance
Benchmarking Project: Final Report. Washington DC. Retrieved from
http://agriwaterpedia.info/images/f/fd/USAID_2010_MENA_ReWaB_Final_Report.
pdf
US Army Corps of Engineers. (2011). White Paper on Columbia River Post-2024 Flood
Risk Management Procedures. Portland, OR. Retrieved from http://www.crt20142024review.gov/Files/Post 2024 White Paper September 2011_FINAL.pdf
US Department of State. (2015a). Circular 175 Procedure. Retrieved December 5, 2015,
from http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/c175/
US Department of State. (2015b). Treaty Affairs. Retrieved January 1, 2015, from
http://www.state.gov/s/l/treaty/
US Senate. (2015). Treaties. Retrieved May 5, 2015, from
http://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Treaties.htm
Vinett, M. A., & Jarvis, T. (2012). Conflicts Associated with Exempt Wells: A Spaghetti
Western Water War, 10–16.
354
Walker, B., Holling, C. S., Carpenter, S. R., & Kinzig, A. (2004). Resilience, adaptability
and transformability in social-ecological systems. Ecology and Society, 9(2).
Walker, B., & Salt, D. (2006). Resilience Thinking: Sustaining Ecosystems and People in
a Changing World. Washington DC: Island Press.
Watson, J. E. (2012, April). A river loved : facilitating cooperative negotiation of
transboundary water resource management in the Columbia River Basin through
documentary film. Corvallis, OR. Retrieved from
http://ir.library.oregonstate.edu/xmlui/handle/1957/29524
Weatherly, H. (2012). Libby VARQ Flood Control Impacts on Kootenay River Dikes.
Retrieved from http://blog.gov.bc.ca/columbiarivertreaty/files/2012/07/BGCKootenay-Presentation-13Nov2012_web.pdf
Weber, E., McNaughton, A., Adams, F., Dansereau, J. L., & Stephens, D. (1959). Report
of the International Joint Commission on Principles for Determining and
Apportioning Benefits from Cooperative Use of Storage of Waters and Electrical
Inter-Connection within the Columbia River System. Retrieved from www.crt20142024review.gov/Files/IJC.pdf
Wehr, P. (1979). Conflict regulation. Conflict Regulation. Boulder: Westview Press.
Retrieved from
http://scholar.google.com/scholar?hl=en&btnG=Search&q=intitle:Conflict+Regulati
on#2
White, R. (1995). The Organic Machine: The Remaking of the Columbia River. Hill and
Wang.
Wolf, A. (2008). Healing the enlightenment rift: Rationality, spirituality and shared
waters. Journal of International Affairs, 61(2), 51–73. Retrieved from
http://www.questia.com/library/journal/1G1-179134862/healing-the-enlightenmentrift-rationality-spirituality
Wolf, A. (2012). Spiritual understandings of conflict and transformation and their
contribution to water dialogue. Water Policy, 14(S1), 73. doi:10.2166/wp.2012.010
Wolf, A., Yoffe, S., & Giordano, M. (2003). International waters: Identifying basins at
risk. Water Policy, 5(1), 29–60.
World Health Organization, & UNICEF. (2013). Progress on sanitation and drinkingwater: 2013 update. Geneva, Switzerland. Retrieved from
http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/publications/2013/jmp_report/en/
355
Yin, R. K. (2014). Case study research: Design and methods (5th ed.). Thousand Oaks,
CA: SAGE Publications.
356
10 Appendix A - Case Study Survey
Columbia River Treaty Review Assessment
Instructions: Review the verbal consent guide and the diagram below to understand the
study and your role in it. If you have any questions please discuss them with the student
researcher.
1. The study you are participating in seeks to evaluate the formal US and Canadian
reviews of the Columbia River Treaty. The overall goal of the study is to learn how to
improve decision making processes. A decision making process is a formal
procedure employed by an organization or individual to make a decision. In this case,
the process you are evaluating is one of the formal reviews of the Treaty either the:
Province of BC’s Columbia River
Treaty Review led by led by the BC
Ministry of Energy, Mines, and
Natural Gas
2014/2024 Columbia River Treaty
Review led by the US Entity
(Bonneville Power Authority and
Army Corps of Engineers)
2. To evaluate the formal Treaty reviews you will answer a series of survey questions
about four characteristics of the review based on your experiences. These
characteristics are the evaluation criteria of the Treaty review process:
Context
Information & Knowledge
Representation & Inclusiveness
Accountability
3. In the survey you will also answer questions about the outcomes of the review
process, namely the recommendation, decision, and other byproducts.
A decision is defined as the official
result of the process (i.e., BC
Recommendation ,US Regional
Recommendation, or either the US or
Canadian official decision)
Byproducts are the (non-target)
outcomes resulting from a process in
addition to the formal decision,
document, agreement, etc. (e.g.,
trust, new technical models)
4. After taking the survey you will discuss your responses with the student researcher to
explore how the Treaty review process impacted the outcomes of the review and your
opinions of those outcomes.
357
Instructions: Please fill out the following survey to help evaluate either the US or BC Columbia
River Treaty review. Your survey responses are confidential. The survey should take about 20
minutes to complete. If you have any questions feel free to ask the interviewer. Thank you.
1. Rate (circle) the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements about
the ACCOUNTABILITY of the Treaty review:
The review was sufficiently transparent
The review tasks/objectives were clearly
specified
Criteria used for how decisions would be
made were clearly specified
The degree to which decision authority
would be shared was clear
To the best of your knowledge, the review
followed the appropriate laws
To the best of your knowledge, the review
fulfilled its legal obligations
The review was procedurally fair/just
Representatives of the public and interest
groups represented their constituents’
interests appropriately
The lead agency of the Treaty review was
responsive to review participants
Strongly
Disagree
1
Disagree
Neutral
Agree
2
3
4
Strongly
Agree
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
2. Do you have any additional comments on ACCOUNTABILITY in the Treaty review? You
will also have an opportunity to discuss this in the interview or focus group.
358
3. Rate (circle) the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements about
the INFORMATION (studies, data, knowledge, facts, etc.) produced and/or used in the
Treaty review:
Strongly
Strongly
Disagree Neutral Agree
Disagree
Agree
The review utilized the appropriate existing
information (studies, knowledge, etc.)
The appropriate technical studies were
conducted
Information was made available in a timely
manner
Information made available was easily
understood
Information shared was audience appropriate
(e.g., matched the level of technical
understanding)
Information produced in the review was
adequate (i.e., appropriate for the decision)
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
4. Rate (circle) the number corresponding with the most accurate statement describing the
degree of INFORMATION SHARING between the review’s lead agency with you and/or
your organization:
Scale
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
Indicators (timing/method/content)
No exchange of information
Irregular release of information (1/yr); informal exchange (e.g., through release of reports
or journal articles)
Irregular but formal exchange of information that is limited, disputed or questioned
Irregular but formal exchange of limited information, validity accepted
Regular formal exchange, only one topic included, validity accepted or disputed
Regular exchange, multiple topics related to water included, validity accepted
Regular exchange, joint gathering and/or processing, only one topic included
Regular (1-2x/year) exchange, joint gathering and/or processing, multiple water issues
included
Regular exchange, joint gathering and/or processing, multiple water issues included,
including socio-economic and environmental issues exchanged or discussed
Extensive and regular exchange, joint information gathering and/or processing, socioeconomic-environmental, policy and planning information
5. Do you have any additional comments on the INFORMATION produced, used, and/or shared
in the Treaty review? You will also have an opportunity to discuss this in the interview or
focus group.
359
6. Rate (circle) the following statements about the REPRESENTATION & INCLUSIVENESS
in the Columbia River Treaty Review:
Strongly
Strongly
Disagree Neutral Agree
Disagree
Agree
Interested and affected parties had a venue
1
2
3
4
5
for participating the Treaty review
Interested and affected parties were
1
2
3
4
5
adequately represented in the Treaty review
You (or your organization) were adequately
1
2
3
4
5
represented in the Treaty review
You (or your organization) had the ability to
1
2
3
4
5
influence the Treaty review on policy issues
You (or your organization) had the ability to
influence the Treaty review’s technical
1
2
3
4
5
studies
You (or your organization) had the resources
1
2
3
4
5
needed to participate (e.g., money, personnel)
You (or your organization) were given the
1
2
3
4
5
opportunity for early involvement
Your (or your organization) were given fair
notice and time to be involved in the Treaty
1
2
3
4
5
review
7. Do you have any additional comments on REPRESENTATION & INCLUSIVENESS in the
Treaty review? You will also have an opportunity to discuss this in the interview or focus
group.
8. Rate (circle) the degree to which you agree or disagree with the following statements about
the Treaty review’s REGIONAL RECOMMENDATION or BC PROVINCIAL DECISION:
Strongly
Strongly
Disagree Neutral Agree
Disagree
Agree
The recommendation adequately addressed
the review’s central task (i.e., determine if the
Treaty should be continued, modified, or
terminated)
The recommendation is legitimate
The recommendation will be effective (i.e.,
the terms of recommendation will be accepted
by the US or Canada)
The recommendation reflects the views of the
region (US Pacific Northwest or BC)
The recommendation reflects your (or your
organization’s) views
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
1
2
3
4
5
360
9. Do you have any additional comments on the Treaty review RECOMMENDATION? You
will also have an opportunity to discuss this in the interview or focus group.
Ability to resolve future disputes
Changes in water management
Coalitions
Communication
Community capacity for environmental/policy decision making
Co-produced science (scientific information created jointly by
parties)
Economic costs
Economic opportunities
Your own education/awareness
Your organization’s education/awareness about the issues at hand
Public education/awareness
1. Human capital (skills, knowledge, training, and experience of
review participants)
Innovation (innovative ideas or solutions)
Institutional capacity (the ability for the basin to adapt to change,
such as new laws, ecological changes like drought and climate
change)
Mutual/shared understanding
Programs or initiatives (outside of the decision)
Quality of relationships
Level of conflict and hostility
Social capital (networks, relationships of reciprocity, and
connectedness)
Shared knowledge and information
Technical models
Trust in the lead agency
Trust in others involved
Understanding of ecological/biophysical system
Understanding of the social system
Understanding of other’s views, positions, etc.
Other - please specify:
Other - please specify:
No change
or don’t
know
Decreased
Increased
Byproduct
Emerged
(new)
Instructions: Review the list of process byproducts below (“byproduct” is defined as outcomes
resulting from a process in addition to the formal decision, document, agreement etc.). Identify
which byproducts you believe emerged, increased, or decreased as a result of the Treaty Review
process.
361
10. List the top THREE byproducts most important to you (or your organization) that resulted
(emerged or increased) from the review process. You will be given an opportunity to explain.
11. List up to THREE byproducts you wish had resulted from or increased due to the CRT
Review process but did not. You will be given an opportunity to explain why during the
interview.
Instructions: Please fill in the demographic information below.
12. Select the review you participated in:
___ United States
___ British Columbia/Canada
13. What was your role in the Columbia River Treaty review (e.g., member of SRT, member of
Sounding Board, technical committee, etc.)?
14. Select which option best describes your affiliation:
___ Federal government
___ Tribal or First Nation
___ Provincial/State government
___ Local government
___ Basin resident/member of public
___ Non-governmental organization
___ Stakeholder group
___ Academia
___ Other - please specify:
__________________
15. Approximately when did you or your organization first get involved with the Treaty review?
16. Approximately how long were you involved in the review?
Thank you for your participation in this survey.
If you have any questions please contact Kim Ogren at (703) 625-6754 or by email at
ogrenk@geo.oregonstate.edu.
362
11 Appendix B - Case Study Interview Guide
Interview Questions
We will discuss as many of these question as time allows. This will be a semi-structured
interview, meaning we may not go through the list question-by-question, but will touch on all of
the topics through a more organic conversation.
Process Questions
1. Did the degree of transparency in the Treaty review process influence the outcome of the
review? In what ways?
2. How did the degree of accountability in the Treaty review process influence the
recommendation/decision?
3. In what ways did the information used and produced during the Treaty review influence
the recommendation?
4. What aspects of the context (such as the social, ecological, or political setting) influenced
the FORMATION Treaty review process?
5. What aspects of the context (such as the social, ecological, or political setting) influenced
the IMPLEMENTATION Treaty review process?
Decision Questions
1. Did any aspect of the Treaty review process influence how you or your organization
agreed with or did not agree with the recommendation?
2. What parts of the recommendation do you agree with or disagree with? Why?
3. What other characteristics of the process influenced the outcome of the [BC CRT or US
CRT 2014/2024] Review? What would have improved the outcome (the
recommendation)?
4. Is there anything else you would like to share and think is important to consider in an
evaluation of the Treaty review?
Byproduct Questions
[In reference to the top three byproducts you listed on the “Process Byproduct Assessment” as
most important.]
1. Why did you list these byproducts [name them, one at a time] as most important to you?
2. How did the CRT Review process promote, enable, or contribute to the byproduct?
[reference previous parts of the conversation about the process assessment, if relevant]
[In reference to the byproducts you listed on the “Process Byproduct Assessment” as those that
did not result from the CRT Review process but they wish they had.]
3. Why did you want these byproducts [name them, one at a time] to emerge from or
increase as a result of the CRT Review process?
4. What prevented them from occurring?
5. What could have promoted or enabled them?
363
12
Appendix C - IRB Approval
364
13 Appendix D - Codebook
Table 108. Water GPA process category primary codes
Code
Explanation
Accountability
Information
Inclusivity
Context
Other
The organization and atmosphere of the process designed to produce a
legitimate decision based on 1) what is the scope of the decision making
process, 2) who will make the decision, and 3) how the decision will be made.
The data, information and knowledge used to make the decision, including all
stages of collection, modeling, experiments, and analysis.
The degree and quality of inclusion of interested and effected parties at various
stages of the process, which may take many forms (e.g., direct participation or
representation) to result in meaningful engagement.
The various conditions of the basin and socio-ecological system under which
the decision is being made. Three subcategories of the context are: social
system, ecological system, and the problem.
Statements about the process that do not fit in any of the other codes
Table 109. Water GPA decision codes
Primary Secondary
Explanation
Decision
Statements about the decision resulting from the process
Dec - Neutral
Neutral or mixed feelings/statements about decision in the process
Dec - Positive
Positive feelings/statements about decision in the process
Dec - Negative Negative feelings/statements about decision in the process
Table 96. Additional codes for analysis of link between a process and its decision
Code
Explanation
Some aspect of the process influenced the structure or content of the
Influenced content
decision
Some aspect of the process increased participant support for the decision
Increased support
Decreased support
Some aspect of the process decreased participant support for the decision
No influence
The process did not influence the decision in terms of content or support
Other
The process had some other impact on the decision
Table 96 displays the codes I used to document potential links between the characteristics of a
process and the decision.
Table 97. Additional codes for analysis of link between a process and its byproducts
Code
Explanation
Some aspect of the process promoted the emergence or increase of a
Increased byproduct
byproduct
Worked against
Some aspect of the process impeded the emergence or increase of a
byproduct
byproduct
No influence
The aspect of the process had no impact on the byproduct
Recommendations or statements about how if the process was run or
structured differently, it would have contributed to a byproduct
Table 97 displays the codes I used to document potential links between the characteristics of a
process and the process byproducts.
Would have helped
365
Table 110. Water GPA byproduct codes
Byproduct code
Explanation
Ability to resolve disputes
Ability to address future conflict
Actual changes in how water is managed by any party involved
Changes in water
in the process (e.g., a change in timing of releases of water,
management
new water quality standards, changes in water rights)
Coalitions
Groups working together towards a common goal
Communication
Exchange of information
The ability of a community to make and/or adapt to decisions
Community capacity
in environmental management
Co-produced science
Scientific information created jointly by parties
Economic costs
New costs identified or assigned as a result of the process
New opportunities for economic gain resulting from the
Economic opportunities
process
Your own
Increased understanding of the decision at hand and its
education/awareness
related issues by the evaluator
Your organization’s
Increased understanding of the decision at hand and its
education/awareness
related issues by the evaluator's organization
Public
Increased understanding of the decision at hand and its
education/awareness
related issues by the general public
Human capital
Skills, knowledge, training, and experience of participants
Innovation
Innovative ideas or solutions
The ability for the basin to adapt to change, such as new laws,
Institutional capacity
ecological changes like drought and climate change
Mutual/shared
Parties to the process came to a mutually agreed upon or
understanding
shared understanding of an issue or issues
Programs or initiatives
New initiative or program (outside of the decision)
Quality of relationships
A change in how parties relate to one another
Level of conflict and
The degree of conflict between different parties in the process
hostility
Social capital
Networks, relationships of reciprocity, and connectedness
Shared knowledge and
Parties to the process all have access to the same information
information
Technical models
New or improved models
A change in the belief or confidence in the reliability, ability,
Trust in the lead agency
honesty or strength of the organization in leading the process
Trust in others involved
A change in the belief or confidence in the reliability, ability,
honesty, or strength of the parties involved in the process
Understanding of
ecological/biophysical
system
Better knowledge of the biophysical characteristics of the river
basin system and understanding of ecological its processes
Understanding of the
social system
Better knowledge and understanding of the social
characteristics of the river basin system and the social
processes in the basin
Understanding of other’s
views & positions
Other
Knowledge of, but not necessarily agreement with, the beliefs,
views, and positions of the various parties involved in the
decision making process
Byproducts that do not fit in any of the other categories
366
Context
Inclusivity
Information
Accountability
Table 111. Water GPA process category secondary codes
Secondary Code
Explanation
Acc - Neutral/Mixed
Neutral or mixed feelings about accountability in the process
Acc - Positive
Positive feelings about accountability in the process
Acc - Negative
Negative feelings about accountability in the process
Fair/just
Whether the process was fair and/or just
Transparency
The degree of transparency and openness in the process
How decision authority was or was not shared and whether or not
Decision authority
that was clear in the process
How decision criteria were set as well as if it was clear what they
Criteria for decision
were and how they would be applied
Lead agency
How the lead agency responded (or did not respond) to participant
responsiveness
requests and inquiries during the process
How the process followed various laws or addressed (or failed to
Rule of law
address) legal obligations
Info - Neutral/Mixed
Neutral or mixed feelings about information in the process
Info - Positive
Info - Negative
Positive feelings about information in the process
Negative feelings about information in the process
Appropriate existing studies and new studies were used; focused
on content of information and technical work
Right information
Available in timely
manner
Understandable/
audience appropriate
Information sharing
Inclu - Neutral
Inclu - Positive
Inclu - Negative
Influence on policy
discussions
Influence on technical
discussions
Resources to
participate
Early access & notice
Representation
Listened to
Neutral/Mixed
Positive
Negative
Socio-cultural
Legal & geopolitical
Biophysical &
ecological
Out-of-basin
The timeframe in which information was produced and shared
Whether the information produced/provided was understandable
and audience appropriate
Degree of information sharing; focused on access to information
Neutral feelings about inclusivity in the process
Positive feelings about inclusivity in the process
Negative feelings about inclusivity in the process
Ability to have input on the policy discussions in the process,
including the ability influence or not influence policy issues
Ability to have input on the technical work in the process, including
the ability influence or not influence technical issues
Resource access and availability for participation in the process
Timing of access to and/or inclusion in the process
How participants were represented and participated in the process
Comments about whether participants felt listened to
Neutral or mixed feelings about context in the process
Positive feelings about context in the process
Negative feelings about context in the process
Culture, norms, economic aspects of the basin
Laws, treaties, court opinions, as well as legal jurisdictions and
authorities that set the stage for the process; political factors that
influenced or set the stage for the process
Physical aspects about the basin including geographic extent,
ecological, geomorphology, biology, topography that set the stage
for the process
Factors physically located outside of the basin (as opposed to
within it) that influenced the process